Physics explains order of WTC Collapse

41 Responses to “Physics explains order of WTC Collapse”

Trackbacks

1. EquMath: Math Lessons » Blog Archive » Physics explains order of WTC Collapse

Comments

1. Nick on December 3rd, 2007 12:58 pm
   

   How do you know how fast it was flying? He said it could withstand “multiple plane impacts” from a 707 and that it would be like “a pencil on mesquito netting”. Can you explain how they fell at free fall speeds?
2. tanabear on December 3rd, 2007 3:28 pm
   

   Victor Chabala writes, “One such claim is that they insist the fact that the South Tower was the first to collapse, despite being hit second is proof of controlled demolition.”

   Regardless of which tower collapsed first, the fact that they collapsed at all and the way in which they did, is evidence of explosive charges.

   Victor writes, “the Boeing 707 that was taken into account for the design of the World Trade Center was assumed to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and going about 180 MPH on landing approach”

   You are confusing the most likely scenario, with what the building was actually designed to withstand. A white paper from 1964 states,

   “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

   Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

   “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

   So he is stating that the buildings could endure multiple impacts of jetliners. The actual destruction of the towers, pulverized concrete, lateral ejection of steel beams, pyroclastic flows, the rate of destruction is all consistent with explosive charges. A gravitational collapse would not produce any of these characteristics. 9/11 was an inside job. The debate is over.
3. Jenn Sierra on December 3rd, 2007 4:54 pm
   

   Nick, and tanabear…did you read that article before you commented, or are you just spouting rhetoric that you’ve read so many times that it is now automatic? Vic specifically answered the points you mentioned in the article. In cased you missed it above, here it is again:

   “In point of fact, FEMA states that the Boeing 707 that was taken into account for the design of the World Trade Center was assumed to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and going about 180 MPH on landing approach ( or in the fog). However, the Boeing 767’s that hit the North and South Towers were going about 470 to 590 MPH, respectively, plus the fact that a Boeing 767 has an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds. Kinetic energy (a.k.a. “energy of motion”) is ½ mass times the square of the velocity, written as KE = ½ mv² (this equation can be found in any physics book). Notice that there is a difference of 11,000 pounds, or 5 ½ tons, between a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 767 (a difference of 5 ½ tons is not to be taken lightly).

   One need not do the math to see that the planes that hit the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 did so with far more kinetic energy than they were designed to withstand….”
4. tanabear on December 3rd, 2007 10:08 pm
   

   Yes, I already read that. You apparently didn’t read what I posted. The statement by FEMA is their opinion and is not backed up by any evidence. I was quoting the people that actually worked on twin towers and did the calculations. FEMA endorsed the official conspiracy theory because they are a government agency, not a scientific one. But if you take the FEMA report as authoritative, then how do you explain this quote from their report:

   “With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.”

   So FEMA is unsure of the events that led to the collapse of the towers. Therefore, the FEMA report is inconclusive. FEMA also had no explanation for the collapse of WTC7 either. I can help then out, controlled demolition.
5. Victor Chabala on December 4th, 2007 1:27 am
   

   Nice try, Tanbear, but Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, actually said, “…. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners.” He didn’t say it could, he said he believed it could. And perhaps you could explain how you get sufficient explosives into the WTC to bring it down?
6. Victor Chabala on December 4th, 2007 1:31 am
   

   Jenn, if you notice the specific wording of the WTC designers statement, he did not say the Twin Towers could stand up to multiple impacts- he said he BELIEVED they could. Not quite the same, is it? That and it was the COMBINATION of the impact of the planes, the dislodging od fireproofing by said impacts, and the intense fires that brought the towers down. In short, Nick and Tanbear are just repeating the usual rhetoric.
7. Victor Chabala on December 4th, 2007 1:34 am
   

   Nick, and Tanbear, almost forgot- here’s a link for you that explains why the WTC collapse was NOT a controlled demolition and could never have been pulled off anyway:

   http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

   You guys will need Adobe or something similar to read it, but the author knows what he’s talking about.
8. Victor Chabala on December 4th, 2007 2:26 am
   

   Oh, and Nick, the towers did NOT fall at freefall, Here are the facts, including the link:

   http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
   In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.
   Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
   Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.
9. Caleb on December 4th, 2007 5:32 pm
   

   None of this explains the molten metal. The energy required to melt steel was not present in any analysis I have read from NIST, FEMA or the 9/11 commission. Even Popular Mechanics has a hard time tip toing around the molten metal. They sound like Rosie, talking about how the fires in the WTC could not melt steel. Their hypothesis is that the steel weakened because of the fire (fueled mostly by rugs and paper, not jet fuel, according to PM) and initiated the collapse. But the fact is molten metal was found under all 3 buildings. This means there is a significant deficit of energy missing from any analysis that has been presented. The most plausible explanation for this energy is controlled demolition. That would be why you keep hearing about this 9/11 truth movement. It won’t just go away until it knows the truth. Lies, deception and misdirection are transparent and do not encourage debate. If you honestly want to discuss this then be real.
10. Caleb on December 4th, 2007 5:33 pm
    

    The towers fell at 60-85% the acceleration of gravity. If we account for air resistance and the conservation of momentum the towers fell faster than free-fall because they were not falling through air. Think about it.
11. Victor Chabala on December 5th, 2007 1:55 am
    

    Caleb, here’s the explanation for the molten metal- and BTW, unless someone attached rocket engines to the WTC, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fall faster than freefall ( it’s called freefall for a reason:

    )http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
    NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.
    Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
    NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
    Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

    I suggest you lay off that special eggnog.
12. Victor Chabala on December 5th, 2007 2:16 am
    

    Oh, and Nick, here’s how I know how fast the planes on 9-11-01 were flying:

    The maximum speed of a B-25 ranged from 275 mph to 315 mph, depending on which version it was, and as the B-25 pilot was trying to avoid the building it’s unlikely he’d have reached that (cruising speed was 230 mph). On 9/11, “American Airlines Flight 11 crashes at a speed of roughly 470 mph” and “United Airlines Flight 175 crashes at a speed of about 590 mph” (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/inside911/timeline.html), a considerable difference when you factor in the extra mass as well.
    I looked it up.
13. Victor Chabala on December 6th, 2007 9:54 am
    

    Hmm, Jen, did you notice all the CT’s backed off when provided with links that support my evidence?
14. tanabear on December 6th, 2007 3:24 pm
    

    Victor writes, “He didn’t say it could, he said he believed it could. And perhaps you could explain how you get sufficient explosives into the WTC to bring it down?”

    Not quite. He said that it was desinged to withstand the impact of a single jetliner. He believed that it could withstand the impact of multiple jetliners. Each building was only hit by one jetliner.

    Quoting NIST you write, “Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials.”

    If this could change the color of the aluminum to orange then this is a hypothesis to be tested, not an established fact. What test’s did NIST do to determine this? None.

    Physicist Steven Jones, though not having the 20 million dollars assigned to NIST, decided to test this claim.

    He wrote,

    “This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not “glow orange” due to partially-burned organics “mixed” in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an “orange glow” when it falls, when you actually do the experiment!”

    “We conclude that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT aluminum. Not even aluminum “mixed” with organics as NIST theorizes.”

    NIST does not even model the collapse of the Towers, and they still haven’t released their report on WTC7 yet. This was suppose to have been finished by 2004. Last year they said that they would have their report out by mid-2007. Then they changed it to late 2007. Now they changed it again to sometime in 2008.

    If they are looking for answers, I have one for them, controlled demolition.
15. Victor Chabala on December 6th, 2007 4:30 pm
    

    Nice try, Tanabear, but Steven Jone’s area of expertise ins COLD FUSION. He is NOT qualified in the area of structural engineering and has been debunked so many times. Oh, and an investigation takes time, and may often be delayed due to new angles that may pop up- you are merely making an assumption, and would do well to remember the old adage as to why one should never assume. Oh, and if you go to the following link, you’ll see why the controlled demolition is impossible: : http://forthardknox.com/2007/12/04/controlled-demolition-of-wtc-impossible/#more-2910. Oh, wait, that’s right- you’re not interested in facts. You might want to consider putting a bit less rum in your eggnog.
16. Victor Chabala on December 6th, 2007 4:31 pm
    

    Oh, and Tanabear, that “test” of Steven Jones has been debunked, and the evidence is here: http://forthardknox.com/2007/12/06/thermite-claim-questionable/. Of course, I doubt you’ll bother with it as it contains facts.
17. tanabear on December 6th, 2007 5:50 pm
    

    Those two articles don’t explain the collapse of the towers, neither can they explain what was leaking out of the South Tower before it collasped.

    “Controlled demolitions are always started from the bottom, to take the most advantage of gravity.”

    Controlled demolitions do this as to limit the damage to adjacent structures. A controlled demolition means that the explosions are precisely timed. Where the explosions begin is not the determining factor. Some demolitons don’t start from the botton, such as the Reading Grain Facility. However, this article certainly did not “debunk” the claim regarding the demolition of WTC7. The charges could have been placed in the building via the elevator shafts. Those shafts allow access to the core columns.

    The other article certainly does not debunk the claim that thermite was used. No one defending the government’s story has provided a reliable explanation of what was leaking out of the South Tower before the collapse. The experiment’s of Steven Jones seem to debunk the claims of NIST. He also found microspheres of formerly molten iron. Where did the iron come from and why was it molten?

    Steven Jones may be a physicist, but he has had many engineering students. As well, many structural engineers believe that the towers were demolished.
18. Victor Chabala on December 6th, 2007 7:22 pm
    

    Nice try- but the only reason you’re saying it doesn’t debunk him is because it disgrees with your point of view. Furthermore, Steven Jones is a member of the 9-11 Truth Movement, a CONSPIRACY group, and is therefore biased. Try providing evidence from unbiased sites. Like most conspiracy theorists, no matter how much evidence is shoved in fromt of your face, unless it agrees with you, you think it’s false. Also, your claim that no government official has explained of the molten material is also false. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
    Oh, and having engineering students does NOT qualify Steven Jones in the area of structural engineering. All you have done is proven my point that you are not interested in facts.
19. Victor Chabala on December 6th, 2007 7:27 pm
    

    Oh, and Tanabear, my statement that controlled demolitions are always started from the bottom came from Brent Blanchard, Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com, and Director of Field Operations at Protec Field Documentations, Inc, which is a widely respected authority in the area of explosive demolition, having done engineering studies, structural analysis, etc on over 1000 different demolition events in over 30 countries. IOW, unlike you, my source actually knows what they’re talking about.
20. tanabear on December 6th, 2007 11:50 pm
    

    Victor writes, “Furthermore, Steven Jones is a member of the 9-11 Truth Movement, a CONSPIRACY group”

    The goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement is the truth. A conspiracy theory would go something like this:

    There is this guy named Saddam Hussein and he is in league with this guy named Osama bin Laden. Saddam is making all these WMD’s that he plans to give to bin Laden, and then before we know it there will be mushroom clouds over American cities.

    This is an example of a conspiracy theory promoted by the neo-cons in our government and it has led to the death of thousands of Americans and ten of thousands of Iraqi’s, plus millions of refugees.

    If the 9/11 Truth Movement is successful then the worst that could happen is justice.

    Victor writes, “Also, your claim that no government official has explained of the molten material is also false.”

    What experiments did NIST do to determine that the molten metal that was flowing out of the South Tower was aluminum?

    Victor writes, “my statement that controlled demolitions are always started from the bottom came from Brent Blanchard”

    Yes, I quoted his statement in my previous post. The fact the most demolitions begin from the bottom does not preclude them from starting at the top. The destruction of WTC1,2 was meant to have a shock and awe effect on the American people. Those buildings were not imploded, they were exploded.

    If demolitions start from the bottom, does this mean that WTC7 was a controlled demolition?

    This is an example of a top down demolition:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhPzpdSSSqI

    “Controlled demolitions are always started from the bottom, to take the most advantage of gravity.”
    Brent Blanchard

    “I refute it thus.”
    Samuel Johnson.
21. Bilzabubba on December 7th, 2007 12:59 am
    

    FEMA?! Are you kidding me? How could anyone believe anything this bogus organization says? Fake news reports on the fires right near you there Victor, and lets not forget their wonderful job in New Orleans. After all the books,dvds,countless hours of pouring over websites and listening to just about every radio talk show on this subject, your the very first i’ve seen that makes a claim to the actual speeds these planes where going. Where did you get that, FEMA? Are they your employer? Or one of the other alphabet organizations? I haven’t seen one thing on this bogus site to debunk anything of substance. Keep on rotting in the free world Victor…
22. Mayfair on December 7th, 2007 5:23 am
    

    Tanabear writes: What experiments did NIST do to determine that the molten metal that was flowing out of the South Tower was aluminum?

    What experiments did Steven Jones do to determine that the molten metal that was flowing out of the South Tower was iron? In particular, video shows these droplets cool to a silvery-gray color during their fall. This would be expected of aluminum, but not iron -iron cools to a dark, almost black color.
23. Torrent29 on December 7th, 2007 7:54 am
    

    “The goal of the 9/11 Truth Movement is the truth. A conspiracy theory would go something like this:”

    This bald faced lie made me want to laugh out loud and chortle. I never really considered the truth movement to be engaged in anything remotely near the truth, and was far more interested in ignoring evidence and screaming that it was an inside job.

    As far as your top down demolition, perhaps you noticed that huge sound ? The loud BOOMS? That explosive blast, none of which was noticed at the World Trade Center. And perhaps you noticed the size of the building as opposed to the size of most office buildings? Annnnnnnd perhaps you noticed that the building was pretty much gutted before the collapse?

    If the goal of 911 denial is really only … the truth, why do you engage so much in lies, why do you remove people from context to suit your own needs? If the goal is justice, why do you harass people? Why do you provide no evidence that is ever used in court.

    I refute 911 denial based on the simple idea that it makes zero sense.
24. Victor Chabala on December 7th, 2007 12:36 pm
    

    Torrent29, you got that right. The 9-11 Truth movement spouts anything but truth.
25. Victor Chabala on December 7th, 2007 1:17 pm
    

    Torrent29, if you ask me, the members of the 9-11 Truth Movement need to lay off that special eggnong. Either that or see a proctologist as the “truthers” have a rahter severe case of rectal-cranial inversion.
26. tanabear on December 7th, 2007 3:28 pm
    

    Mayfair writes, “What experiments did Steven Jones do to determine that the molten metal that was flowing out of the South Tower was iron?”

    I answered that question in one of my previous posts. I will post it again in case you missed it.

    Steven Jones: “NIST says that flowing aluminum with partially burned organic materials mixed in, “can display an orange glow.” But will it really do this? I decided to do an experiment to find out.

    We melted aluminum in a steel pan using an oxy-acetylene torch.

    Then we added plastic shavings — which immediately burned with a dark smoke, as the plastic floated on top of the hot molten aluminum. Next, we added wood chips (pine, oak and compressed fiber board chips) to the liquid aluminum. Again, we had fire and smoke, and again, the hydrocarbons floated on top as they burned. We poured out the aluminum and all three of us observed that it appeared silvery, not orange! We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.) Of course, we saw a few burning embers, but this did not alter the silvery appearance of the flowing, falling aluminum.

    We decided to repeat the experiment, with the same aluminum re-melted. This time when we added fresh wood chips to the hot molten aluminum, we poured the aluminum-wood concoction out while the fire was still burning. And as before, the wood floated on top of the liquid aluminum. While we could see embers of burning wood, we observed the bulk of the flowing aluminum to be silvery as always, as it falls through the air.

    This is a key to understanding why the aluminum does not “glow orange” due to partially-burned organics “mixed” in (per NIST theory) - because they do NOT mix in! My colleague noted that it is like oil and water - organics and molten aluminum do not mix. The hydrocarbons float to the top, and there burn - and embers glow, yes, but just in spots. The organics clearly do NOT impart to the hot liquid aluminum an “orange glow” when it falls, when you actually do the experiment! (Refer to attached videos of our experiments.)

    In the videos of the molten metal falling from WTC2 just prior to its collapse, it appears consistently orange, not just orange in spots and certainly not silvery. We conclude that the falling metal which poured out of WTC2 is NOT aluminum. Not even aluminum “mixed” with organics as NIST theorizes.”

    So his experiments conclude that it was not molten aluminum.

    Torrent29 writes, “As far as your top down demolition, perhaps you noticed that huge sound ? The loud BOOMS? That explosive blast, none of which was noticed at the World Trade Center.”

    There are many people that reported hearing explosions at the World Trade Center site that day. The actual destruction of the Towers sounded different because it just wasn’t one or two explosions, but a whole series of explosions going off simultaneously. This is why it sounded like a constant roar, or as a freight train as others described it.

    Torrent29, “Annnnnnnd perhaps you noticed that the building was pretty much gutted before the collapse?”

    Yes, in normal demolitions people do this to limit the dust from the explosives. This was not done in the towers. That is why there was this dust that covered much of lower Manhattan. It was inches thick in some places. The towers were simply blown up top-down. Their goal was to kill people and cause devastation and shock. That is not the goal of a conventional demolition or implosion.
27. Mayfair on December 7th, 2007 6:25 pm
    

    Tanabear :I answered that question in one of my previous posts. I will post it again in case you missed it.

    No, you have not answered my question. Let me rephrase it. How has Stven Jones proved the droplets are iron, especially as they cool to a silvery-gray color? He thinks he has proved they are not aluminum (I don’t accept that for a second), but he has not proved they are iron. Why not lead, zinc etc?
28. Victor Chabala on December 7th, 2007 8:16 pm
    

    Mayfair, there you go, confusing the CT’s with logic.
29. tanabear on December 7th, 2007 9:06 pm
    

    NIST claimed that what began pouring out of the South Tower right before it collapsed was molten aluminum from the planes. Steven Jones tested this hypothesis and found it to be without merit.

    If you think it is zinc or lead then you need to establish what lead or zinc object could have produced this flow.

    Steven Jones: “The approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal… Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all. Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the Thermite reaction.”

    The fires in the South Tower were not hot enough to heat up any metal to this color. So we have to posit another source.

    When Dr. Jones examined some of the dust from the collapsed Towers he found previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust. Molten iron is the byproduct of a thermite reaction. This official story can’t explain any of these phenomenons

    All this is prima facie evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
30. Torrent29 on December 7th, 2007 11:27 pm
    

    In actuality many of the people that reported ‘explosions’ and such were using it in a context of describing the sounds they had heard. But lets assume that Rodriguez for a second, isnt the liar he so richly deserves to be called. Are we to believe that the explosions that triggered the demolitions happened an hour before the building came down? Is this typical twoofer logic? It seems so.

    As far as the explosions and the sound, it seems that you are talking out your ass here, but I’ll look into it. Considering your ongoing track record I will not be giving you the benefit of the doubt.

    Moving on, the comical assertion about Steven Jones is really very disproven in a number of areas. But first lets look at his dust sample. A dust sample that he himself will not provide a chain of custody for. That by itself is almost enough to completely toss aside nearly any research he has done. But going even further, his dust sample was taken from a woman’s apartment who gathered it up into a plastic ziploc bag and placed it into her freezer because she was divinely inspired.

    So for the most part… I think we can dismiss almost all of his work on his ‘dust sample’ with prejuidice.

    Now moving on, last time I checked Thermite does not cut in a diagonal fashion, nor is it actually used in demolitions for just this reason.

    Tana so far you’ve spent a lot of time going over some pretty easily disprovable stuff, your reliance on Jones’ work is nearly criminal.

    Finally let me address the fires that were recored in temperatures of upwards of 1800 degrees which is more then enough to melt several kinds of metal.

    Jones’ work is very poor, it is why his own department has distanced himself, why he has failed to have a proper peer review for any of his work, and why no one agrees with any of his findings.
31. Mayfair on December 8th, 2007 5:05 am
    

    Tanabear writes :If you think it is zinc or lead then you need to establish what lead or zinc object could have produced this flow.

    The room above the flow was where Fujibank housed their Uninterrupible Power Supply(UPS). A UPS is a room full of lead-acid batteries.The concrete floors were poured onto a galvanized steel pans. Galvanized steel is steel with coating of zinc.

    Tanabear writes: Steven Jones: “The approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its color, quite independent of the composition of the metal…

    Only if uncontaminated. Is zero contamination likely?

    Tanabear writes: Steven Jones:Moreover, aluminum from a plane would melt at approximately 550-650 C, and would flow away from the heat source, and thus would be very unlikely to reach 1000 C at all.

    In places high temperatures were certainly attained. An ordinary house fire can reach ~ 900 C no problem at all.

    Tanabear writes: Steven Jones: Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum but could be molten iron from the Thermite reaction.”

    “Could be molten iron”. So he has proved nothing at all, nor has he provided an explanation for the coloration of the cooled droplets. Also requiring explanation is the fact that molten material is seen flowing from one corner of one tower and that’s all. If these towers were stuffed with thermite, where are the other flows?

    Tanabear writes: The fires in the South Tower were not hot enough to heat up any metal to this color. So we have to posit another source.

    The fires were hot enough.

    Tanabear writes :When Dr. Jones examined some of the dust from the collapsed Towers he found previously molten iron spheres in the WTC dust. Molten iron is the byproduct of a thermite reaction. This official story can’t explain any of these phenomenons

    So tell me, what alternative sources for the microspheres has Jones considered and how has he eliminated them. A good scientist would do this..

    Tanabear writes: All this is prima facie evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

    No, it’s prima facie evidence that Jones is a poor scientist or a charlatan.
32. tanabear on December 8th, 2007 11:54 am
    

    Torrent29 writes, “In actuality many of the people that reported ‘explosions’ and such were using it in a context of describing the sounds they had heard.”

    Yes, explosions generally sound like explosives. William Rodriguez helped to save many lives that day and he was one of the last people out of the building before it collapsed. He received a National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. A study of the oral histories of the firefighters show that up to 118 reported hearing explosions. Many EMS workes and employess in the towers heard explosions as well.

    Barry Jennings, deputy director of the Emergency Services Department, heard explosions in WTC7 before any of the towers collapsed. When he reached the sixth floor there was an explosions and the landing gave way.

    “The whole time you’re hearing boom, boom, boom, boom, boom…There’s a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. I didn’t see any reason for that building to fall down the way it did — and a lot of guys should be saying the same thing. I don’t know what the fear is coming out and talking about it? I don’t know — but it’s the truth.”
    Craig Bartmer, NYPD regarding WTC7

    Torrent29 writes, “As far as the explosions and the sound, it seems that you are talking out your ass here, but I’ll look into it.”

    “We got to the point of being in between the Vista Hotel and the World Trade Center, at which
    point we heard a — we felt a loud — a very strong vibration, shaking, and a loud noise like a subway train coming through a station at speed, like a jet engine at full throttle. It was a ROARING
    sound.”

    “When the South Tower collapsed, firefighters on upper floors of the North Tower heard a violent ROAR, and many were knocked off their feet…”
    9/11 Commission Report

    “Right as he said that, I heard a loud ROAR, “boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom,” and it was getting louder.”
    John Citarelli

    “We were in the process of getting some rigs moved when I turned, as I heard a tremendous ROAR, explosion, and saw that the first of the two towers was starting to come down.”
    James Drury.

    Torrent29, “But first lets look at his dust sample. A dust sample that he himself will not provide a chain of custody for.”

    It came from the apartment of Janette MacKinlay. So if someone feels divinely inspirted this will cause previously molten iron spheres to form in the WTC dust. But if she did not feel divinely inspired this would not have happened? You might want to explain this process a little better.

    Torrent29 writes, “last time I checked Thermite does not cut in a diagonal fashion.”

    Wrong! There is something known as the “Linear Thermite Cutting Apparatus.” It is US patent #6183569. Watch a quick demonstration of a basic one here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M

    A little learing is a dangerous thing, Torrent29. It is your own track record that you should be concerned about, not mine.
33. tanabear on December 8th, 2007 1:13 pm
    

    Mayfair, “A UPS is a room full of lead-acid batteries.”

    Torrent29, “the fires that were recored in temperatures of upwards of 1800 degrees which is more then enough to melt several kinds of metal.”

    Are you really going to try to make that claim that the molten flow is lead batteries? For it to glow that color it would have had to heated up to 1000C or so. There is no evidence that the fires, especially in the South Tower, got that hot for any significant length of time, and there is certainly no evidence that the steel got that hot.

    What experiments have you done to determine that it was molten lead batteries?

    Once again Torrent29 is confusing the temperature of the fires, with the temperature of the steel. When NIST analyzed some of the steel that wasn’t recycled, it found that only 2% of the perimeter columns saw temperature above 250C(482F) and none of the core columns. NIST also reported:

    “Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures of 600ºC(1112F)”

    So the actual results by NIST show your claims to be without foundation.

    As well, according to NIST the jet-fuel would have burned up within ten minutes or so. After that it would have been burning office contents.

    Mayfair writes, “So tell me, what alternative sources for the microspheres has Jones considered and how has he eliminated them.”

    There could be several explanations. The point is that it cannot be explained in anyway by the official story. Therefore, we must step out of the government propaganda story and consider alternate explanations. His results are also backed up by FEMA’s testing of some of the steel:

    “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel…
    The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event.”

    Just curious, how long does it take for you guys’ stove or furnace to collapse? I bet you can’t leave it running for more than a hour without it completing self-destructing?
34. Mayfair on December 9th, 2007 4:59 am
    

    Tanabear writes :What experiments have you done to determine that it was molten lead batteries?

    None, of course. What experiments has Jones done to determine it was molten iron - none. Has he explained it’s cooled coloration?-no. Has he explained the lack of a single similar flow in either tower?-no.

    Tanabear writes :There could be several explanations. The point is that it cannot be explained in anyway by the official story. Therefore, we must step out of the government propaganda story and consider alternate explanations. His results are also backed up by FEMA’s testing of some of the steel:

    Yes indeed, there could be several explanations for the microspheres. My question was what alternative explanations has Jones considered and how he has eliminated them. I take it from your reply that Jones has not considered anything other than his thermite fantasy and has not done any work to eliminate other sources.

    Tanabear writes :“Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel…
    The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event.”

    From debunking911myths:

    The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

    I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

    Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

    Tanabear writes :Just curious, how long does it take for you guys’ stove or furnace to collapse? I bet you can’t leave it running for more than a hour without it completing self-destructing?

    You think a stove or furnace is designed to collapse when heated? Why?
35. torrent29 on December 9th, 2007 11:03 am
    

    “William Rodriguez helped to save many lives that day and he was one of the last people out of the building before it collapsed.”

    I’m sure he did, that doesn’t make him any more credible of a witness especially when caught lying constantly.

    Explosions also sound like buildings collapsing for instance:

    Keith Murphy — (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

    How curious that your quote seems different …

    While searching for information about Craig, I found this :

    “He says that he’s “buddies” got him drunk an made him watch loose change and now he thinks he heard explosives go off and that 9/11 was an inside job.”

    Yeah…

    Now moving on, I have to admit I spent about a minute laughing my ass off on watching your ‘proof’ of a thermite cutting horizontally.

    “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M :

    This was just beyond laugh out loud funny, it was downright farcical.

    I mean your proof is a brief 5 second video showing a … what? A steel beam? What? Either way aside from it being all of 5 seconds long, showing just a brief cut, and the size of what was cut, I have to say that it was just the most downright comical thing I’ve seen yet, to provide this as proof … of well … anything… is just … well your choice.

    o_O

    See many things sound like explosions, people from surrounding buildings reported explosions as well from the towers collapsing… but yet curiously… nothing exploded in their buildings.

    As far as Jones sample:

    “So if someone feels divinely inspirted this will cause previously molten iron spheres to form in the WTC dust. ”

    Considering he provides no chain of custody, plus we have no idea what may have been in her apartment, and many other factors in the whole process is more then enough to simply dismiss it away. Perhaps to you… I mean if you really want to engage in bad science, thats up to you. However his failure to even follow simple research methods makes his work questionable.

    “James Drury.”

    I’ll take this moment to note that he was outside at the time, and that would’ve made most of the sounds that he would’ve heard been captured on the video and audio of that day, perhaps you could point me to one that seems to back up YOUR assertion that the roar and explosion he describes here is what you say it is and not the sound of the buildings exploded? I’ll eagerly await a sound much like we see in the video of actual building demolitions.

    I know one wont be forth coming, but this is just another example of 911 deniers removing quotes from context.
36. tanabear on December 9th, 2007 4:49 pm
    

    Mayfair, “What experiments has Jones done to determine it was molten iron - none. Has he explained it’s cooled coloration?-no.”

    It is the same color that molten iron or thermite would be. Lead melts at 621F. When it does melt, it is a dull grey color. As it melts it begins to flow away from the heat source. So you are saying that as it flowed from the heat source its temperature increased to above that of the fire? The point is that jet fuel fires, which had already burned out by that point, are not capable of heating a molten metal to that color. So we have to posit another source besides the fire. Tell me what this heat source is?

    It is good that know that you can cut and paste from government propaganda websites. The government needs lemmings like you so it can continue to kill people who had nothing to do with 911.

    It was reported by WPI,

    “Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel–which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit–may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon–called a eutectic reaction–occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

    “A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.”

    Since this is a “novel” phenomenon, why hasn’t it happened in any building fire before? Plus, no steel-frame high-rise has completely collapsed due to fire either. So the government can’t even explain the collapse of the building, much less the phyiscal evidence.

    Mayfair, “You think a stove or furnace is designed to collapse when heated? Why?”

    No, you are making the claim that if a certain structure, which is comprised of steel, heats up to a certain temperature that the whole structure will self-destruct. Are you saying that buildings are designed to collapse when heated, but no other structures?
37. Mayfair on December 9th, 2007 5:58 pm
    

    Tanabear : Since this is a “novel” phenomenon, why hasn’t it happened in any building fire before?

    Perhaps because there’s never been a pile of rubble like there was at ground zero before.

    Plus, no steel-frame high-rise has completely collapsed due to fire either. So the government can’t even explain the collapse of the building, much less the phyiscal evidence.

    NIST have explained the cause of the collapse. And if you and Jones are claiming the buildings were brought down by thermite, that would be a first in history but one which doesn’t seem to bother you at all.

    Tanabear:No, you are making the claim that if a certain structure, which is comprised of steel, heats up to a certain temperature that the whole structure will self-destruct. Are you saying that buildings are designed to collapse when heated, but no other structures?

    No, you were worried about my stove collapsing when heated. My stove is designed not do so. A building is not designed to be a stove.

    Tanabear:The government needs lemmings like you

    How appropriate. The lemmings story is a myth, a fable -just like 9/11 troof.
38. tanabear on December 9th, 2007 6:23 pm
    

    Torrent29, “I’m sure he did, that doesn’t make him any more credible of a witness especially when caught lying constantly.”

    Felipe David was injured in the blast. Are you saying that his wounds are fictitious too? Or do you just not like people questioning government propaganda?

    Torrent29 writes, “How curious that your quote seems different.”

    Actually, it doesn’t seem different. He thought it sounded like bombs. The government lied and told everyone there were no bombs/explosions, so if you believe the offical story you have to believe what you heard was not explosions.

    In regards to WTC7, you can hear firefighters say before the building implodes,

    “The building is about to blow up, move it back.” … “Here we are walking back. There’s a building, about to blow up…”

    Torrent29, “He says that he’s “buddies” got him drunk an made him watch loose change and now he thinks he heard explosives go off and that 9/11 was an inside job.”

    He might think that because there were explosions going off. As I stated earlier, Barry Jennings heard and experienced explosions while he was in WTC7. Is he a liar too?

    My original comment was that a whole series of explosions would sound like a constant roar. You have done nothing to show that this statement to be false.

    Torrent29, “This was just beyond laugh out loud funny, it was downright farcical.”

    Yes, it shows that you were wrong. Your original statement was, “last time I checked Thermite does not cut in a diagonal fashion.”

    I provided evidence that debunked your claim. You don’t seem concerned about being wrong all the time. Nevertheless, I find your squirming on this issue amusing as well.

    Torrent29, “See many things sound like explosions, people from surrounding buildings reported explosions as well from the towers collapsing… but yet curiously… nothing exploded in their buildings.”

    The World Trade Towers were not collapsing, they were being blown up top-down. If you are going to make a claim that they collapsed without explosives then you need to provide the explanation for how this was done. NIST stated, “We are Unable to Provide a Full Explanation of the Total Collapse”. Please, give me your explanation, Torrent29.

    Torrent29, “Considering he provides no chain of custody, plus we have no idea what may have been in her apartment, and many other factors in the whole process is more then enough to simply dismiss it away.”

    Translation: Anything evidence that contradicts government propaganda should be instantly dismissed.

    So where did the previously molten iron spheres come from?

    A little learning is a dangerous thing, Torrent29. Continue to drink deep and regurgitate from the government spring.
39. tanabear on December 10th, 2007 3:30 pm
    

    Mayfair writes, “No, you were worried about my stove collapsing when heated. My stove is designed not do so. A building is not designed to be a stove.”

    A building is designed to house a large number of people. Are you saying that it is more prone to collapse than a stove? If so, why don’t they design buildings like stoves? Buildings are designed to stand up, not fall down. The idea that buildings are designed to collapse is ridiculous.

    Mayfair, “Perhaps because there’s never been a pile of rubble like there was at ground zero before.”

    This doesn’t establish any casual link as to what caused this phenomenon. You need to explain why a pile of rubble would cause this event to occur. So far no answers. Of course, you don’t actually care about finding out what happened. You care about making up stories to justify war crimes by this government, a noble endeavor, no doubt.
40. thedman113 on December 15th, 2007 2:11 am
    

    One only needs to do a 5 second search of Google images to prove that molten aluminum can be orange.

    “Are you saying that it is more prone to collapse than a stove?”

    If my stove were supporting 80,000 tons, it would have collapsed a long time ago.

    “So he is stating that the buildings could endure multiple impacts of jetliners.”

    They did.

    “The actual destruction of the towers, pulverized concrete,”

    You don’t think there can be pulverized concrete without explosives?

    “pyroclastic flows,”

    Only occur during volcanoes.