WTC building 7's collapse. What is the truth?

[proiowadem]

First off I would like to thank all of you who replied to my list.

<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4110498#4116288>

The list is my way of trying to keep track of anything and everything I can think of, know, or would like to know about these past five years. As to what I know, I can assure you it’s not much, there is a lot of information out there, I have haven’t seen a fraction of it. I try to be open minded, and I do fail in that sometimes, but I like to think I can give the benefit of the doubt to anyone, even Bush. But when I see things like the Downing Street Minutes, probable election fraud, and the thousands of people who have died in Bush’s Wars, I see an administration that is bent on its own agenda no matter what. I like to know as many facts as I can get however in the absence of facts I grab on to questions, and sometimes yes, conspiracy theories.

I am a person who thinks that the WTC building 7 collapse was a controlled demolition. I’ve seen the videos of its collapse as well as other known controlled demolitions, and the similarities are staggering. However I want it to be known that my eye is not an expert eye. I HAVE NO BACKGROUND IN ENGINEERING OR IN THE BEHAVIOR OF FIRES. I am an antiques dealer from Iowa. I’ve been doing more research to try and fill in the gaps of my knowledge of the WTC 7.

<http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtcreport.htm> Chapter 5

The link is to a report from May 2002

This report on the WTC has helped quite a bit, but even they have only theories and hypotheses. And I quote "The specifics of the Fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time." (Again it was May 2002) the report then states that further testing needs to be done. I have been trying to locate the further research and have come up empty, I'm sure it’s a failure on my part as I am not terrible computer literate.

I’m writing this post because I’ve been reading the 9/11 commissions report and I am sick to the core. I’ve yet to read anything about WTC 7 in it. Is there anything in there to read? If there is anyone out there who can help me prove my ideas about WTC 7 are wrong PLEASE DO SO. I would really like to think that I can have faith in my government again. Because right now I’m rather depressed.

[philb]

1. The owner admitted he had it pulled, and there's other support for Demolit

WTC7 Evidence of Controlled Demolition http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html#ref1
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html

[hack89]

2. Accounts of heavy damage from on scene firefighters..

We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

[StrafingMoose]

3. Interesting...

The only fires I've ever seen yet in WTC7 are two moderate fires at different floors.

Anyone with other pictures of fire/damage on/in WTC7?

[hack89]

4. Here is a good description..

of how the combination of damage and fires could have brought down WTC 7.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

Don't forget that there were most likely fires inside the building that were not visible from the outside.

[janedoe]

5. If that's the case...

then any building could "suddenly collapse" via a few trash-can fires. So, why didn't they want to study it?

If our science and technology can gather the pieces of the space shuttle Columbia and resolve exactly what happened to it, surely they could figure out how a few trash-can fires took down a 47-story building in 6.5 seconds.

For a progressive collapse in 6.5 seconds, gravity would need to be increased by a factor greater than 40xg.

[hack89]

6. You are talking nonsense..

what trash can fires? Did you even bother to read the account of multiple fires on several floors? Did you even consider that there might be fires in the interior of the building that aren't visible? And how do you ignore the eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage (a hole "20 stories tall") to the building?

And how do explosives accelerate a collapse? Isn't the fundamental concept behind controlled demolition that the supports are severed and gravity does the work of bringing down the building? Wouldn't an accelerated collapse argue against controlled demolition?

[John Doe II]

7. Do you have more than one

witness talking of a hole "20 stories tall"? And do we have any impressive photo after 4 years from this impressive fire?

[hack89]

10. I have a better idea..

it is a article of faith that WTC 7 sustained no major damage after the twin towers collapsed yet I don't recall any pictures or eyewitness accounts supporting this. While I am looking for more statements why don't you provide a witness or picture proving the south side of WTC7 was intact after WTC 1 and 2 collapsed?

[janedoe]

11. Here is one picture of a pristine WTC7.

Here is a picture of WTC7, after both towers collapsed and before WTC7 collapsed. Although this is just one face, it is the wider face and it shows that it's intact. So, even if the narrow side (side you can't see in this picture) was damaged, it wouldn't fall straight down; it would bend over -- like taking a "bow." It would not collapse straight down.


Now, here is WTC7, just as it begins to go down. The picture is of the same surface as shown above (the wider face is in view of the camera). Note the vertical lines of detonation charges and the tell-tale pyroclastic flow emerging from the base. Also, note the kink in the building. The controlled demolition split the building into two parts that were to fall into each other.

[philb]

16. See the South face in afternoon on the post below, no big damage

that was obvious from the picture. Why didn't someone at the site among the authorities document the extent of damage? Wouldn't this be something that authorities at a crime scene would want to do?

[spooked911]

31. Where is the picture? Was it deleted? I'd love to see it.

[philb]

106. picture of south face of WTC7 in afternoon

I'd posted it before; I think its here:
http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

http://www.wtc7.net/

Since its an important building with lots of important tenants and there was plenty of time, and it was a crime scene,

why didn't authorities show more concern and effort to save the building, and do more documentation of damage to the building???

Seems extremely strange to me, that they didn't document the crime scene damage, and made little if any effort to save the building, then brought it down by controlled demolition when no similar building had ever been brought down by fire.

As per the other WTC buildings and Pentagon, there was major evidence suppression and cover-up. Why?

http://www.flcv.com/coverup.html

[John Doe II]

20. Hack, Hack,

I didn't claim anything. You claimed something.
You claimed:
And how do you ignore the eyewitness accounts of massive structural damage (a hole "20 stories tall") to the building?

You use the plural, don't you?
So, I kindly ask you to provide any substance to your claim.
Do you have more than one witness?
Or any photo.

[John Doe II]

21. Hack II

If you attack people and claim things I'd expect you to have some sources at hand for your claim.
So where are your witnesses for the hole?
You certainly do have a source otherwise you wouldn't make this claim...

[hack89]

26. Will three more be OK?

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

Deputy Chief Nick Visconti:

I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visconti.html


Battalion Chief John Norman:

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html

I eagerly await your argument on why amateur analysis of internet video is much more reliable than eyewitness accounts from experienced firefighters.

[seatnineb]

27. O.K

Other buildings, like the world financial center, sustained heavy damage............



....but never collapsed.

[hack89]

28. So what?

It was a different building, different design and suffered different amounts of damage. Apples and oranges.

[seatnineb]

39. The "so what!" rebuttal means nothing.

Here is the fire in WTC building #5



And here is the fire in WTC building #7



And yet when all is said and done......

Most of WTC5 still stands....whilst the mighty WTC7 is reduced to rubble.....

[hack89]

42. Lets solve this mystery together, shall we...

As shown in the NIST report and in my posts, WTC 7 has a unique internal structure and suffered severe external damage. Once you show me the design details of WTC5 and the damage it suffered, I am sure it will be very apparent whether we are comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges.

[seatnineb]

48. You said it!...........a mystery.

Here is WTC7 just a few seconds before it collapses.

With nary a fire in sight.






And here is WTC5 burnin' like hell.........



And here it is 3 weeks later......

[hack89]

54. I didn't think you had anything to contribute. n/t

[pox americana]

59. Except direct photographic evidence.

But who needs evidence when you've got faith-based news?

[hack89]

63. Nonsense

your photos are irrelevant unless you can prove that the building were the same and they suffered the same structural damage. I don't understand your inability to grasp this simple point.

[pox americana]

66. No steel-frame highrise has EVER collapsed due to fire

as far as I know, and the ones that collapsed due to earthquakes and/or shoddy construction (like this one, Mexico City's Hotel Intercontinental in 1985) have collapsed only partially.

[hack89]

67. Totally irrelevant...

show me a building that suffered massive structural damage before it caught on fire and maybe you'll have a valid point. There was a 20 story gouge in WTC7 - don't you think it had an impact on the building's stability?

[pox americana]

69. Show me the "20 story gouge"

and I'll tell you. If it was a 20-story rip in the curtain wall, no, it had no structural effect. And even if it was deeper, like the rips in the WFC and Banker's Trust buildings, it would have had very little effect, and definitely not a catastrophic one.

[hack89]

71. Read post 2 and 26...

Eye witness accounts from on scene fire fighters. If it had no effect, why was the fire department monitoring a bulge in the side of WTC 7 hours before it fell? They knew it was going to collapse well in advance and I certainly am going to take their word over an amateur google engineer.

[pox americana]

72. I said show me.

Hearsay from firemen after the fact is meaningless, sorry.

For one thing their remarks were coached and for another they're the ones who are supposed to have recommended "pulling" it according the owner.

[hack89]

73. Thanks for the laugh!

Entire "smoking gun" threads in this board are based on single anonymous hearsay statements - don't you realize you'll shut down the board with such a standard.

Have a good evening!

[pox americana]

74. The official story is based on hearsay

and notoriously unreliable hearsay at that, so I'm glad you see the value of photographic evidence.

Got any?

[stickdog]

108. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate.

Why didn't NIST's metallurgists get a chance to examine even a SINGLE piece of WTC-7 steel?

[hack89]

112. Entire "smoking gun" threads in this forum..

are based on single anonymous eyewitness statements so don't give me that BS. Anyway, here's the proof that steel from WTC7 was studied.

http://www.fema.gov/library/apd_sprdsht.shtm

[stickdog]

119. I notice you didn't answer my question. Did anyone else notice that?

And about that FEMA study of WTC-7 metal, it's quite interesting what they found, isn't it?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Summary for Sample 1 (from WTC7)

1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

...

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


*****


The only piece of metal from WTC-7 that's ever been intensively studied showed highly unusual signs of severe sulfidation. Meanwhile, NIST's "metallurgical" study of WTC metal was a complete scientific joke and included ZERO pieces of metal from WTC-7.

Anyone who cites NIST's rank speculation as evidence of anything is either disingenuous or scientifically ignorant. The only decent scientific study of the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is linked above. And the findings of this study conclusively demonstrate that the metal examined was subject to a highly unusual and aggressive high temperature chemical attack. However, both the source and the duration of the extreme sulfidation are completely unknown.

Now, again, why did NIST's supposedly more ambitious metallurgical study fail to even cursorily examine a SINGLE sample of WTC-7 steel?

[hack89]

123. Look at post 121 n/t

[seatnineb]

77. You thought wrong.

World Trade Centers 5, 6, and 7 roared with fire; No. 7 was a 40-story building, its top 5 floors all aflame.

http://www.projo.com/words/st20021016.htm





So where is the fire then hack?

[hack89]

80. From the NIST report

General
No diesel smells reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby
No signs of fire or smoke below floor 6 from stairwell and lobby areas
Fire reported at west wall of floor 7 around 12:15 pm
In east stairwell, smoke was observed near floors 19-20;signs of a fire observed on floor 23

Looking from southwest corner to the south face
Fire in SW corner near floors 10 or 11
Fire on floors 6, 7, 8, 21, 30
Multiple fires observed on floors numbered 20’s and 30’s
Heavy black smoke coming out of south face gash; no fire observed

Looking from southeast corner to the south face
Fire on floor 12 area above covered with smoke
Fire on floors 11-12 moved to east face and progressed to the north

[seatnineb]

87. Wrong.

All your earlier testimony only referenced the southwest and south eastern walls.

"Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13"

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd...




I don’t know how long this was going on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc...


Battalion Chief John Norman:


From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. .... but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.


http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norm...

So what about the all imporant south wall itself?

The NIST can't save you here.

The NIST have NO photos or reliable eye-witness testimony to the southern wall.

Nothing.

Nill.

Nada.

Deal with it.

[hack89]

90. I have more faith in NIST than I do in you...

this thread is getting too personal - bye bye.

[seatnineb]

93. The NIST have no photos of the south wall.Period.

In the world of the NIST.

A large building with a relatively small fire......




.....collapses!




....whilst a small buildiing with a relatively large fire....



....stays upright.

[janedoe]

96. Cool! Your first picture shows something else.

Note the broken window on the right side of your first picture (WTC7). I think it's post #93.

No fires are lapping out that window on the far right! A raging fire is limited by the oxygen. So, doesn't this illustrate it wasn't a raging fire?

Also, there are two open windows on the floor directly below the fires you can see. They look stained with black smoke, as if the fires had burned out. (Also, the windows next door to the fire show their fires went out.)

[stickdog]

107. Why wasn't ANY actual metal salvaged from WTC7 for NIST's study?

Just wondering.

[hack89]

111. Wonder no more!

http://www.fema.gov/library/apd_sprdsht.shtm

[seatnineb]

113. No......

This is the U.S/Iranian Proffesor who was charged with sole responsability of analysing the rubble(before it got hauled away).




Hassan Astaneh at the Jersey City scrap yard where the WTC steel is taken.



"When there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over," he says. "If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major machine, a major manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/attack/main503217.shtml

[hack89]

114. A second source

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/recovered_steel.htm

And your post shows what exactly?

[seatnineb]

116. Just one man assigned to examine 300 000 tons of WTC rubble!

The operation - which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas. The thought pains him. In his view, the building should have been reconstructed before it was recycled

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/attack/main503218.shtml

[hack89]

117. Did you even read my post?

You know, the part were it talks about two labs examining the steel?

Read here about the 17 engineers who volunteered to identify steel for further analysis.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd.pdf

[seatnineb]

118. Yeah!............they examined the steel identified by Asteneh!

To turn these discoveries into practical improvements, Astaneh has been working with David McCallen, a structural engineer at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California. They are using the lab’s powerful supercomputers to model how different designs would hold up to a collision with a plane.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/attack/main503218.shtml

Try Again.

[hack89]

122. Where does is say that he is the only one looking at the steel.

I showed you 17 engineers culling WTC steel from the landfills.

Additionally, there this:

By chance, while visiting the offices of The New York Times last week to chat with one of its science writers, he heard about plans to immediately recycle steel from the site, and launched a lobbying effort to convince the city to wait until the debris had been inspected by structural engineers. Thanks largely to a Saturday article by Kenneth Chang and James Glanz, the city has agreed to make the steel available to Astaneh and other engineers heading up an investigation for the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Not quite the one man show you are trying to portray.

FEMA and the American Society of Civil Engineers formed and deployed a Building Performance Study Team consisting of specialists in tall building design, steel and connection technology, fire and blast engineering, and structural investigation and analysis.

The Team conducted field observations at the WTC site and steel salvage yards, removed and tested samples of the collapsed buildings, viewed hundreds of hours of video and thousands of still photographs, conducted interviews with witnesses as well as persons involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of the affected buildings, reviewed construction documents, and conducted preliminary analyses of the damage to the WTC towers.

[seatnineb]

124. Adstaneh says he was the only one....

Not just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on.


And if Astaneh had his way....there would have been up to 200 analysts involved at the landfill.......not just a pitiful (supposed) 17 from FEMA.

You (would)have maybe 200 engineers
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/attack/main503218.shtml

[hack89]

125. Pretty weak but OK .. you win. n/t

[seatnineb]

126. Rubbish.......it is FEMA 's/ACSE's samples that are weak.

Funny how you forgot to mention this:

Early confusion over who was in charge of the site
and the lack of authority of investigators to impound pieces of steel for examination before they were recycled led to the loss of important pieces of evidence that were destroyed early during the search and rescue effort. In addition, a delay in the deployment of FEMA's BPAT team may have compounded the lack of access to valuable data and artifacts



The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7–12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear.

In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris—including most of the steel from the upper floors—was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel—including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns—were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm



So FEMA arrived after 3 weeks........

Yet Guiliani was hauling debris away within days.....


The operation - which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas. The thought pains him. In his view, the building should have been reconstructed before it was recycled.

Also....

Even one of the peices that interested Astaneh had already been cut up by the removers!:

He came across one crucial member after it had already been cut up, just as it was to have been taken for recycling


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/attack/main503218.shtml

You got nothing.

[hack89]

127. Ok - you win again. n/t

[seatnineb]

128. No......we lose............

Even within the context of the official story....

This was a crime scene.

So why did this happen:

Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm




So why did this happen

[hack89]

130. It's important that you get the last word, isn't ? n/t

[seatnineb]

137. It is important to prove............

...that you obviously don't give a fuck about the fact that steel from the upper portions of the WTC were being hauled away before any scientific team had a chance to analyse them.

[hack89]

138. Here...I'll give you another opportunity. n/t

[stickdog]

120. I notice that you failed to answer my question.

And about that FEMA study of WTC-7 metal, it's quite interesting what they found, isn't it?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC...

Summary for Sample 1 (from WTC7)

1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

...

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.


*****


The only piece of metal from WTC-7 that's ever been intensively studied showed highly unusual signs of severe sulfidation. Meanwhile, NIST's "metallurgical" study of WTC metal was a complete scientific joke and included ZERO pieces of metal from WTC-7.

Anyone who cites NIST's rank speculation as evidence of anything is either disingenuous or scientifically ignorant. The only decent scientific study of the ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE is linked above. And the findings of this study conclusively demonstrate that the metal examined was subject to a highly unusual and aggressive high temperature chemical attack. However, both the source and the duration of the extreme sulfidation are completely unknown.

Now, again, why did NIST's supposedly more ambitious metallurgical study fail to even cursorily examine a SINGLE sample of WTC-7 steel?

Just wondering.

[hack89]

121. Thanks for the info...

This is further proof that there were hot fires burning in the rubble pile for weeks after the collapse.

Your

1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.

Fits in nicely with this (note red hot steel four weeks later):

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "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."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[stickdog]

129. And what was the source of the sulfur, pray tell?

[hack89]

131. Good question - show me a modern high explosive that has sulfur..

as an ingredient or as an explosive by product.

BTW - sulphuric acid is a common by product of acid rain.

[stickdog]

132. Yes, it must have been acid rain. That's the ticket!

http://www.solvayvishnubarium.com/market/explosivesindustry/0,,5251-2-0,00.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/explosives-compositions.htm

Dynamite was originally a mixture of nitroglycerin and diato-mite, a porous, inert silica. Today, straight nitroglycerin dynamite consists of nitroglycerin, with sodium nitrate, antacid, carbonaceous fuel, and sometimes sulfur in place of the inert filler.

...

Straight gelatin is a dense, plastic explosive consisting of nitroglycerin or other explosive oil gelatinized with. nitrocellulose, an antacid, sodium nitrate, carbonaceous fuel, and sometimes sulfur.

...

Slurries, sometimes called water gels, contain ammonium nitrate partly in aqueous solution. Depending on the remainder of the ingredients, slurries can be classified as either blasting agents or explosives. Slurry blasting agents contain nonexplosive sensitizers or fuels such as carbon, sulfur, or aluminum, and are not cap sensitive; whereas slurry explosives contain cap- sensitive ingredients such as TNT and the mixture itself may be cap sensitive.

[hack89]

134. Sorry - guess I need to be more specific..

I was looking for high explosives with sulfur that are used to cut steel during controlled demolitions - like cutting charges http://www.dynawell.de/explosives_lsc.html

Metal-cutting charges are flat triangles of plastic explosive (usually plastique). A blasting cap detonator is placed in the point of the triangle. The triangle is laid down with the wide end wrapped around the material to cut. When the blast reaches the end of the explosive, it is reflected into the metal, cutting it.

A scissors charge is two of the above triangular charges, placed on opposite sides of the metal, on opposite sides of the cutting line. They must be sized and timed so the blast wave of each arrives at the same time at the cutting line. The opposing blast waves shear the metal.

Notice that they use plastic explosive such as RDX or C4, none of which use sulfur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4_explosive
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotrimethylene_trinitramine

Lets think this one through:

1. With your trained eye, it is obvious that WTC collapse was a controlled demolition. This implies, would it not, that standard techniques and explosives were used. If it was a non-standard demolition how would you have been able to recognize it for what it was? The industry standard for bringing down steel frame buildings is shape cutting charges using plastic explosives, not Dynamite or gelatin or slurries.

2. Because it was a covert operation, it would have been critical that the explosives used were as compact and as efficient as possible, therefore minimizing the amount of material smuggled into the buildings. It would also need to be compact to ensure it could be concealed in the walls and ceilings. Shaped cutting charges are the only explosives that fit the bill.

As for the acid rain

'Acid rain' is caused by sulfur from impurities in fossil fuels, and nitrogen from the air combining with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. These diffuse into the atmosphere and react with water to form sulfuric and nitric acids which are soluble and fall with the rain. Some hydrochloric acid is also formed.

Steel, nickel-plated steel, antirust coated steel, and even galvanized steel are corroded by acid rain. British railroad officials attribute one-third of the replacement cost of steel rails to acid corrosion (Ostmann, 1982). Paint manufacturers acknowledge that acid rain is breaking down paints (Brown, 1981).

As a report in the journal, "American Chemical Society" (1992) concludes ... many materials used in man-made structures are subject to deterioration from normal weathering; however, rates of deterioration have increased significantly since the advent of industrial pollution. Sulphur oxides have been strongly correlated with the deterioration of structural materials. The reaction of sulphur-based solutions on the surfaces and in the pore structure of materials produces increased rates of erosion, chipping, fracture and discoloration

http://www.merritton.ca/effects.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg13n1-kulp.html
http://www.rst2.edu/ties/acidrain/PDF/1backinfo/bg9.pdf
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/Acid_Rain/Older/Buildings.html

[stickdog]

135. And what are blasting cap detonators made of again?

And it certainly was NOT critical to use the most compact explosives possible. The building housed the Secret Service for God's sake. Nobody would have questioned anything any workers with security clearance were doing.

But these are the sorts of sand castles people like you build their "rock solid" opinions upon, while suggesting that open-minded people like me -- you know, folks simply asking legitimate questions that still remain completely unanswered -- believe nefarious black helicopter tales as a point of faith. It's really quite fascinating.

[hack89]

136. Feel better now? ......Good

Ok, now concerning your comments about blasting cap detonators

Many detonators' primary explosive is a material called ASA compound. This compound is formed from lead azide, lead styphnate and aluminium and is pressed into place above the base charge usually TNT or tetryl in military detonators and PETN in commercial detonators. Other materials such as DDNP (diazo dinitro phenol) are also used as the primary charge to reduce the amount of lead emitted into the atmosphere by mining and quarrying operations. Old detonators used mercury fulminate as the primary, and it was often mixed with potassium chlorate to yield better performance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonators

and

Explosives commonly used in blasting caps include mercury fulminate, sodium azide, lead azide, and tetryl.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasting_cap

Sorry but no mention of sulfur based explosives.

[catnhatnh]

153. And this acid rain got to the columns....

...HOW? I thought the main point of HAVING a building was to exclude the elements.....I mean, compairing Railroad rail exposure and internal columns...JEEZ....

[mandog]

154. What about the explosives and detonators?

perhaps we are facing a third, unknown source of the sulfur. I am not a chemist so I have no idea. You would think that if there was chemical traces of sulfur than there would be other chemical traces of explosives. Do you know of any environmental agencies that have posted the results of any environmental sampling from ground zero - there might be something there. Just a thought.

[petgoat]

155. Sulfur Source

Could it be from a fireproofing coating? Could it be from the diesel?

[hack89]

156. Gypsum in the sheet rock

Drywall (also called wallboard, gypsum board, GWB, plasterboard, SHEETROCK® and Gyproc®) is a building material consisting of gypsum formed into a flat sheet and sandwiched between two pieces of heavy paper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall

sulfates:

Sulfate is the IUPAC name for the SO42- ion, consisting of a central sulfur atom single bonded to four tetrahedrally oriented oxygen atoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfate

The calcium carbonate of the limestone produces pH-neutral calcium sulfate that is physically removed from the scrubber. That is, the scrubber turns sulfur pollution into industrial sulfates.

In some areas the sulfates are sold to chemical companies as gypsum when the purity of calcium sulfate is high. In others, they are placed in a land-fill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

[spooked911]

30. I must say that is a great find-- I don't know why no one has uncovered

them before.

However, there are still a couple of strange things:
1) first, if there was a bulge in the southwest corner, three-quarters of the way down on building, how on earth did the building manage to collapse so symmetrically? Why didn't it bend over on that side?
2) if the bulge, which was some major structural distortion presumably, indicated an imminent collapse, how did the building stay up for three more hours?
3) second, they think it was going to collapse at 2pm and it holds up until 5pm then symmetrically falls down? Is there anything at all odd about that to you?


Also, it is not at all clear that the bulge and damage to the face would normally indicate collapse of the building-- presumably the firemen were very shell-shocked after the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2-- and were worried that any building damage would cause collapse.

[hack89]

32. Did you read the NIST report?

It discusses the unique internal structure of the building - I suspect you will find your answer there. I look forward to see what you find.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/June2004WTC7StructuralFire&CollapseAnalysisPrint.pdf

[spooked911]

34. I read the report-- basically, they have no idea what initiated the global

collapse, nor why three key supporting columns gave way.

But the fact is, the building collapsed evenly at free-fall speed. There is no way to explain that without controlled demo taking out several key columns at the base.

[hack89]

35. Show me a good source for the speed of collapse

and we'll take it from there.

[spooked911]

40. just watch any video of the event

but even the NIST report says that the time from when the roof dropped to when the building completely collapsed was about 6 seconds (note, this is not counting the initial collapse of the Penthouse structure-- if you add that in, the total time is just over nine seconds-- still damn fast).

[hack89]

41. Lets do some math..

If free fall time for the WTC 1 and 2 was about 10 seconds and the WTC7, at 570 feet, is less then half the height of the twin towers, then it appears to me that WTC7 should have fallen in 5 seconds or less. At 9 seconds, it would appear that WTC 7 fell at half the speed it should have.

[janedoe]

44. Here's the math!

Refer to my post about the 100-story towers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=48327&mesg_id=48389

For your convenience, I've reposted one of the figures, below.

WTC7 is 63 floors shorter than WTC1.

110 - 37 = 63

So, cut off the lower 63 floors in the figure. If it were a floor-by-floor pancaking, it would take well over 40 seconds for the top floor to land on the ground.



If you don't want every floor to pancake, just one out of every 10 floors, it will take at least 14 seconds! As you can see, the free-fall time for the top floor is about 6.5 seconds. You may want to refer to my other post for an expanded time scale so you can pick off this time more easily.

(Sorry, I haven't figured out how to change the picture size, yet. )

[hack89]

47. But didn't the collapse of WTC7 start at the bottom?

so it is not a pancake collapse is it? The NIST reports believes it was the failure of one of three support columns on the seventh floor. It is very clear from the video that there was an instantaneous vertical failure at one end of the building - unlike the WTC 1 and 2, the collapse did not start at the top. So, even if the column was severed with explosives or failed due to fire, wouldn't the building have collapsed the same way? Isn't that the fundamental premise of controlled demo - that you remove supports at the bottom and let gravity bring down the building?

[janedoe]

50. The failures would need to be in all floors at the same time.

Otherwise, how could the top floor fall in free-fall speed?

Let's assume you blow up the first floor. Now you have a 46 story building, floating in space, and then "drops." When it drops, the top floor still must mash through the next floor... etc.

For the roof to fall at free-fall speed, it can't have any resistance. When you look at the videos, you can see the rate of drop accelerate. i.e. If you capture a frame every 0.5 seconds, you will see that the difference in building height between frames increases.

Also, you can see charges shooting out of the building at various places.

[janedoe]

51. It falls straight down.

Isn't it a bit strange that an irregular building, with no line of symmetery, built over a sub station, falls down perfectly straight?

...and ends up in a nice, neat, little pile?

[hack89]

53. Gravity and a lot of weight..

what horizontal force would there be to cause anything else but a vertical collapse?

[janedoe]

57. Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate why it can't be vertical.

If it's collapsing because of of gravity, the vertical force is greater than the structure's ability to resist that force.

Here's the experiment:
An aluminum can (with the contents removed). e.g. an empty can of pop.

Experiment 1:
If the can is in pristine condition, it is symmetrical.
Now, lower your weight onto the can, carefully. If you only apply a vertical force, you should be able to balance on the can without it crushing. For fun, have a friend shoot the can with a rubber band (or a wad of paper), and the can will collapse.

Experiment 2:
Now, the WTC was not symmetrical. So, to account for this, put a small dent in the the otherwise perfect can. Try to lower your weight onto it, without it collapsing. Remember, only apply a vertical force.


Question for either case: Why is there horizontal bending in the can?

[hack89]

62. Because, unlike a building, the can is one homogeneous piece of metal?

A building is made up of thousands of individual pieces. A horizontal column in WTC7 would be made of many smaller columns joined end to end. It is not made to bend and requires horizontal supports to remain upright. The building would move sideways only a short distance before the welds would fail and anything it was supporting would then fall vertically due to gravity.

WTC is not a can or a tree - it would not topple over. It is made of many parts all carefully designed to distribute the massive weight of the building. Shift the distribution of forces and that weight will tear it apart.

Experiment 3: take a can and violently stomp (vertical force) on it. Notice that it is perfectly flat with no horizontal bending. If the force (or weight) is massive enough there is no time for horizontal bending.

[janedoe]

75. An empty pop can is not homogeneous

An empty pop can has a cross section of aluminum and air... and they are not "homogenized."

The aluminum can example is ideal for illustrating buckiling. If a building's support columns are overloaded, the mode of failure would be buckling (until it failed at the weekest point and then tipped over).

Let's call the vertical members, "columns," and the horizontal members, "beams."

You said, "Shift the distribution of forces and that weight will tear it apart."

Umm.. does that mean the building will collapse if people walk around inside (shifting the distribution of forces)?
How about as spring day, with a nice breeze? Is that enough of change in the loading on the building to make it "tear apart?"

I think the wind design load for those buildings was a 160-mph wind. (i.e. a hurricane) I assum the windows would break, but not the building.

As for your Experiment 3. Have you tried it? Was all of the deformation fertical? You descriped your results as "perfectly flat." So, you ended up with a compressed ring of material? or was it a flat-solid disk of material? If it was a disk, how did the material "spread" if no forces were in the horizontal direction?

If you obtained such results, I'd surely like to see them. (You could patent your process, too!)

Every can I've "mashed" (with nice, vertical, results) hase ended up a little wider in diameter, with the vertical dimension folding in a zig-zag, like an acordian.

Remember, the final shape is determined by forces, not speed.

[hack89]

81. You would be right IF..

buildings were extruded in one single piece with huge building makers - but they are not. As previously stated (and I assume you agree), they are made up of many individual parts. With this seemingly easy to grasp concept in front of us, lets look at your assertions:

1. Your point about the failure mode of columns is true but irrelevant unless you believe that the columns in WTC7 were single 500 foot long beams. You know that is not true - those columns were made up of many smaller beams joined end to end. The failure mode therefore changes - the joints become the weakest link as they are discontinuities in the column that act to concentrate the stresses. As the building tilted, the joints would fail and whatever they were supporting would fall vertically due to gravity, there being no horizontal forces. It is not a tipping failure - it is a disintegration of the column.

2. I didn't get your joke about people walking around - sorry! As for the wind, well, aren't they horizontal forces? And aren't we talking about vertical forces? So I am not sure what the point is. I don't dispute that the buildings were designed to withstand strong winds but that doesn't mean that the building will therefore withstand any strong force. And it certainly says nothing about how it would collapse.

3. Those cans you mashed - didn't the top and bottoms line up perfectly - mine did. If it was a building, one would end up with the roof falling within the footprint of the foundation with rubble distributed around the foundation. That implies, does it not, that the roof fell straight down. If you mash a dented can violently with great force, it will end up flattened and not bent over.

[spooked911]

65. Couldn't controlled demo have taken out that column?

And then taken out the others so the building came down evenly?

It's not like THEY know why the column/s failed.

[hack89]

68. So you agree..

that analysis of video alone is inadequate to distinguish controlled demo from other causes?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[janedoe]

12. Here's what 18-hour fires do to steel-frame skyscrapers

Here's what 18-hour fires do to steel-frame skyscrapers:


Note that this (above) charred building still stood after it burned (violently) for 18 hours. This building was in Madrid.


Compare with WTC7:
A few trash-can fires don't cause a 47-story building to collapse into a nice, neat, little pile -- and so tidy a pile thast you could drive a vehicle around the alley that was adjacent to the building. Notice the neat pile is not charred and doesn't show signs of having had flames leaping out the windows.

Note the buildings on either side do not appear damaged. Also, note that there was another building between WTC7 and the closest tower that collapsed. The building between WTC7 and the closest WTC towere is at the very top of the picture.

[MercutioATC]

23. Do we know that they were of similar construction?

That would seem to make a difference to me.

[spooked911]

24. No --an accelerated collapse would not argue against controlled demolition

Jane Doe's point is that for a progressive collapse, you need to have time for each floor to gain maximum freefall speed. A true progressive collapse takes time. You can't have floor by floor pancaking in 6.5 seconds. The top of the building can only come down in 6.5 seconds if the supports were taken out perfectly, and then gravity does the work, as you indicate.

The key point to the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7 is that they happened much too fast too occur by a progressive collapse, because in these collapses the structures beneath the collapsing floors are not giving any resistance. The buildings fall at almost free-fall speed. That can't happen unless the lower floors were taken out by explosives before the floors above impacted them.

[StrafingMoose]

13. A good way to corroborate this...

Would be to get the data from the fire detection system. I guess that such a building would be hooked up to a central (theft/intrusion/fire) and this data could possibly tell us how many fires they were inside.

AFAIK, "it was there but you coudln't see it" isn't quite a posture I'd take often.

[hack89]

17. How silly of me..

of course in buildings like this, fires limit themselves to only those rooms with windows! What could have I been thinking?

[StrafingMoose]

18. I was being serious and constructive...

And there you are all out sarcastic.

Great. Assume stuff you can't see, where there COULD have scientific ways to verify it (alarm system records, for example).

[janedoe]

56. So, where do they get the oxygen?

Fires need open windows to get enough oxygen. Otherwise, they starve and suffocate. I didn't see many open windows.

[hack89]

64. Perhaps all that debris falling on the south side

broke a bunch of windows you think? You know, the side eyewitnesses reported suffered massive damage?

[philb]

14. Strange/conflicting accounts everywhere. Small fires>> What is the truth?

Here's a picture of WTC7 south side in afternoon. Where are the fires and damage?

http://www.wtc7.net/b7fires.html

[hack89]

36. Couple of questions

1. What time was the picture taken? It is only meaningful if you can prove they show the fires at their peak strength.

2. The rooms with windows only represent a very small fraction of the area in the building. Is it your contention that all the fires in WTC7 were visible and that none were blazing out of sight in the interior of the building? If so, what proof do you have of this unlikely state of affairs?

[LARED]

29. WTC 7 Fire pictures

Reportedly an actual screen shot of a TV image

[pauldp]

33. Do you have a source for these? Windows look wrong.

they look much taller vertically than in all the other pics of WTC7.

[pox americana]

58. That isn't WTC7, it's WTC5

which incidentally did NOT collapse.

Seatnineb posted this pic up above:

[pauldp]

70. Thanks. I didn't think it was WTC7

[JackRiddler]

9. Commission Report & NIST

Commission Report: bizarrely does mention WTC 7 with regard to the Giuliani bunker going unused, and to note that it was evacuated at 9:30 a.m.

That it became the first steel-frame skyscraper in history to collapse without being hit by an airliner at 5:20 p.m. is not mentioned.

NIST: Devotes a whole section on their site to WTC 7. Very interesting, but ultimately the damage pattern they show touches on NONE of the core columns.

Later

[philb]

15. How could they rig it for "pulling" so quick when it was evacuated?

Does this mean it was rigged for pulling before 9/11?

[StrafingMoose]

19. That's another question I have regarding "pull it" of WTC7...

[spooked911]

22. That would be my guess.

Just like the twin towers were rigged up before 9/11.

[pauldp]

25. Have you checked out this video?

http://reopen911.org/video/cte_07.mov

This MIT scientist has interesting stuff to say about possible times when the charges could have been placed.

[LARED]

49. Jeff King is NOT an MIT scientist

He has a BS degree in biology from MIT, (1967?)

He does not work there, nor does he possess any credentials that make his opinion about controlled demolition more valid than the Janitor at MIT.

[pauldp]

52. OK so he's got a science degree from MIT. Speaking of credentials...

Where's your source for those WTC7 fire pics? Those windows sure look different than all the other shots of WTC7.

[LARED]

76. So would you agree his opinion carries no more weight

on controlled demolition than your average guy or gal?

[pauldp]

78. I guess I'd want to see his CV and resume before I start doing things like

comparing him to a janitor.

Even if he was just a janitor many of his points are valid. Particularly the point about all of the evidence being scrubbed from the site - a very bizarre occurance considering FEMA didn't know what caused the collapse.

[janedoe]

79. Follow that decision, and you have your criminal(s).

It's pretty telling that they "don't know" what brought the buildings down, but aren't concerned! Aren't they concerned that a trashcan fire in the Sears Tower could cause it to "suddenly collapse"to dust?

Consider the evidence collected and evaluated from the Columbia Space Shuttle event. The cause of failure was determined beyond any reasonable doubt. Determining the cause of collapse of all three WTC buildings could have been "officially" determined, beyond ANY reasonable doubt, if the folks in charge actually wanted that decision.

I think that, alone, is useful evidence. It was that the cause "could not be determined," it was that they "did not want it determined."

Next question: Why didn't "they" want it determined?

[spooked911]

146. This is exactly right.

The degree to which they have NOT pursued exactly what made these buildings fall is appalling and by itself indicates that they are hiding something.

The Columbia Shuttle disaster is great comparison. Sure, some people could say-- "well, mistakes are bound to happen when you are trying to do something as complicated and difficult as launch a spaceship into space" and write off really investigating it-- but they wanted to know what exactly happened. As it is, we DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED WITH THE WTC's.

[pox americana]

37. I think the "truth" is that it was an asbestos liability

and somebody decided they wanted to open Greenwich Street back up, so WTC7 had to go.

[bassman79]

38. Just watch the video of the collapse...

It's Conclusive. Controlled Demolition.

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

[hack89]

43. And how many controlled demolitions..

have you seen using a vertical line of charges vice horizontal. If it was a controlled demo then it was unlike any controlled demo seen before.

[pox americana]

45. It was VERY similar to the controlled demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe

housing project in St. Louis, which was photographed and videotaped in 1972 and is widely available. Oddly enough WTC 1 and 2 were also designed by M. Yamasaki.

Anyway Google Pruitt-Igoe.

[janedoe]

46. Excellent picture of pyroclastic flow.

Also, your picture illustrates just how tricky it is to get the buildings to fall vertically. In the picture you posted, it looks like they deliberately tipped them inward, just to be sure to contain it. Also, by folding them inward, they don't need to worry about "live" control (like force transducers to correct tilt).

[hack89]

55. Pyroclastic flows? Volcanic erruptions is an interesting theory!

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/PF/pcflows.html

And what is a force transducer?

[pox americana]

60. thanks

Compared to Pruitt-Igoe, WTC 7 was a work of art--straight down with zero damage to buildings just a few feet away on either side.

Somebody must of been very proud.

[janedoe]

61. They got better with practice.

Remember when WTC2 went down? The (large) top portion of the building began to rotate, and their program had to make corrections to stop the rotation.

Remember when WTC1 went down? The (small) top portion of the building rotated, reverse rotated, as it was dropping, implying only small corrections were needed.

Now, WTC7? It was perfect. However, to fairly judge this job, we must consider the aspect ratio of the building. It wasn't a square cross section. (Those must be tricky!) Instead, WTC7 looked like a simple variation of the Pruitt-Igoe job, but on a single building. They had the left portion and the right portion fold in on each other. That's why then needed the vertical split.

[Papa]

82. I don't think I've seen it mentioned in this thread but what about the

pools of melted steel at the bottom of WTC7 ? That's evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down. Molten steel was found there over a month after the building came down, something an office fire could not do.

[hack89]

83. If I remember correctly

it turns out that there was only one report of molten steel from an anonymous source. If you have additional information I would be interested in seeing it.

And no one has ever been able to explain how high explosives melt steel considering they use high pressure shock waves and not heat to do their damage.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

85. But they were part of the plot!

Two guys whose companies were hired by the government to remove and destroy the evidence - you trust them? Sound like government disinformation to me.

In a more serious vein - American Free Press is a nut job conspiracy site whose owner Willis Carto is associated with racist anti-segregationists and neo-Nazi holocaust deniers. They are not believable - try again.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Free_Press

[Papa]

86. They were interviewed

Not a theory, not an editorial, with no mention anywhere that I could find that they retracted their statements to American Free Press.

Even tho i don't make it a habit to watch FOX NEWS and rarely believe anything they say, when they report a hurricane is headed towards the US does that mean it can't be believed?


Coupled with the visual evidence from NASA showing hot spots, why should there be a doubt that there was melted steel in the basements even if it was reported by 'kooks'? I remember hearing something like this reported on TV way back then but didnt think anything of it at the time.

[hack89]

89. Interviewed by a Nazi?

and of course someone who writes such a site can be counted on to never fabricate interviews, can he?

You need to be careful - if you have to defend scum like the American Free Press in order to "prove" something then maybe there was nothing there to prove.

As for the hot spots - consider this:

1. take several thousands of tons of structural steel and heat them in a 1000 degree fire for an hour or so.

2. collapse the steel into a big heap

3. surround the hot steel with thousands of tons of combustible material, creating smoldering fires. We will use the Madrid fire as an example of how much combustible material is in a modern office building.

4. cover the entire mixture with a thick layer of debris that acts as an insulating blanket to trap the heat.

I think that would create a hot spot or two - don't you?

[philb]

105. Not as you suggest

But as we've seen, there was also documentation of molten metal. And not just as reported by Bollyn, who seems to at least be one of the hardest working analysts who has interviewed more people actually involved with 9/11 events than anyone else I'm aware of.


What caused the molten steel in the residue at WTC towers?
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/radio/youreyesdontlie/index.html
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm

New York Sanitation Workers had to haul off molten steel beams
http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/

Hot spots in WTC residue too hot for gasoline fires
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

[hack89]

115. So we both agree there were hot fires in the rubble pile .. good

Your SEAU source states fires were burning 21 days after the collapse . Do you agree then that the hot spots were caused by post collapse fires and not large pools of molten steel created by explosives or thermite?

Your gas point is a strawman - no one is saying the rubble pile fires were fueled by aviation fuel. The Madrid fire proved without a doubt that modern office buildings are packed with combustibles, don't you agree?

note the reference to red hot steel beams

Combustion products continued to be emitted from the debris pile in the ensuing months. Dust was "no longer part of the plume per se after about day three or four because the rains came and washed some of the dust and smoke away," Lioy said. What was left were smoldering fires.
The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "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."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[janedoe]

88. Hot spots?

You said:
"Two guys whose companies were hired by the government to remove and destroy the evidence - you trust them? Sound like government disinformation to me."

I see your point and share your skepticism. So, here is consistent information on at least the fires. Curiously, the MSM (mainstream media) showed daily images of the smoldering pile, well into December 2001. I think we all remember seeing pictures of them. There were also reports from many many "pile workers" who all talked about the smoldering heap. The MSM called it a "burning" fire at "ground zero," but I never saw any flames.

So, why was it smoldering? There couldn't have been raging fires in the subbasements, under the pile. They wouldn't have enough oxygen. There were subway tunnels running through there, but I assume they were collapsed and plugged up with debris. To feed a raging fire, you'd need to fire jet engines through the tunnels, turning them into a wind tunnel, essentially making it like a giant propane torch. But, we didn't see such air movement shooting out through the pile.

So, why was it smoldering for 3 months?

The smoldering pile looked something like a smoldering barbecue pit. But, for cooking over hot coals in a barbecue, you must first get a fire started that's hot enough to get the coals burning. If you've ever done this, you know it takes time absent a huge heat source, like a high-temperature kiln. (And, even with a high-temperature kiln, you'd need enough time for the heat to transfer.) So, how did the WTC underground burning get started?

[hack89]

91. Read my post 89

Wouldn't tons of red hot steel constitute a heat source?

And, again, how do high explosives melt steel?

[janedoe]

92. Where was the "red hot steel?"

Here is a view into the airplane hole of WTC1. Note, the fires were just about out.



Where's the "red hot steel?" If it had been so hot, why is this woman (in red box near the center) still alive? You may recall the many people jumping out of the smoke-filled upper floors of WTC1. Note: dead people don't jump.

This piece of information (people jumping) has stuck in my mind from the start, as it conflicts with the "hot melting building" koolaid we were immediately fed.

[hack89]

95. So a picture showing a tiny fraction of the WTC proves what?

Show me a wide angle shot with all the involved floors and then we'll talk.

[janedoe]

94. I do not know what they used to explode the buildings.

But, I do know what we can eliminate as possibilities.

Think. If you took the hot coals from your barbecue grill, pulverized them, then threw them out the window to scatter in the wind, how hot would they be when they landed? What would keep them burning?



I think it's safe to assume that the bottom part of the building is burried the deepest. Certainly it wasn't "ret hot" when it was burried. The part from the top of the building flew through the air. Anything that could feed a hydrocarbon fire was turned to dust. (You can't use steel as fuel in your fireplace.)

[hack89]

97. Good discriptions of the smouldering fires at ground zero:

I guess the impossible happened. Notice the lack of molten steel.

The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS also measured temperatures when it flew over ground zero on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, Clark said.

However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October, in the evening," said Thomas A. Cahill, a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "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."

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

[janedoe]

99. Here is the September 16 thermal image

The second building is a view from the north, looking at the face where the first plane went into WTC1.
So, how could the smoldering pile be 1,000°C if the parts weren't "glowing red hot" up on the tower, before it fell?

It looks to me that the heat came from under the building, not up near the top of the building.

[hack89]

100. Because there were fires burning at ground zero..

in the rubble pile. If you had taken the time to read the enter article you would have seen that environmental testing showed combustion products at ground zero for weeks after 9/11. Combustion products = combustion = fires. Seems simple to me. I can't wait to hear your explanation for this.

And again, there is absolutely no proof of molten metal at ground zero.

[janedoe]

102. When I don't know who says what and what story to believe...

I use logic and my own understanding of physical concepts.

This has served me well.

[hack89]

103. I understand

Have a good weekend.

[janedoe]

98. smoked out

Here are some folks driven to the outside of WTC1 by the smoke. (no raging fires)



Here is a zoomed-out view of WTC1, just as WTC2 was exploding.
Where are the raging fires? Note, this pictue was taken shortly before WTC1 was exploded. (no raging fires)

[janedoe]

101. Nice article.

Thanks for the post!

Here is the seismograph (from Columbia U. seismology web site)

I think it's pretty incriminating.

[hack89]

104. Do you go to neo -Nazi web sites for all your scientific analysis?

Google Christopher Bollyn and see all his scientific credentials. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stickdog]

133. When you don't like the message, kill the messenger.

How about addressing the issue? Is that too much to ask?

[hack89]

139. The message was fucked up too.

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. The graph that Janedoe posted show the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (below) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.



Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University/Won-Young Kim (senior research scientist)/Arthur Lerner-Lam (associate director)/Mary Tobin (senior science

In other words they cherry picked their data, ignored the data that didn't support their agenda and twisted the meaning of the data they used. Of course that is the only time I have ever seen that happen in the CT world.

[janedoe]

140. Excellent evidence! - Thanks for posting it.

...your chart supports the case for controlled demolition!

But, I really don't know how the chart you showed supports your argument.

Let's review the chart you posted in your post#139.
1st impact... produces ground motion of 288 nm/sec,
2nd impact... produces ground motion of 206 nm/sec, and it dampens out faster than the first impact.
So, I would expect less damage in WTC2, from the impact.

Now let's review the collapses. (Note the scales are different, causing the chart to appear as if NO motion occurred before the sudden collapse.)

WTC2 produces ground motion of 4,204 nm/sec,
WTC2 produces ground motion of 5,777 nm/sec,

Gee... those numbers look a whole lot bigger than the impact numbers.
Let's look at the collapse chart of WTC1, which produced a 2.3 magnitude earthquake ...that lasted about 9 seconds, total! I also notice that there are some smaller peaks, then a BIG one... after which the ground motion QUICKLY settles out.

Hmmm... what do you think would cause that result? For a progressive collapse, wouldn't you have a fairly constant amplitude?

[hack89]

141. Why would there be a constant amplitude?

could you please explain the physics for me so I call follow your argument?

And I don't understand why you are surprised that the collapse created greater earth motion than the impact - it's the energy of a 100 ton 767 vs the energy of a million tons of steel and concrete.

[LARED]

152. A few points

The graphs you are looking at are a combination of S and P waves. They are superimposed on each other in parts of each graph, so amplitude may not be as meaningful as you imagine, nor will you be able to determine time without know how to separate the two waves.

The dampening difference seen between the tow towers will most likely be attributed to the impact points being at different locations on the towers.

Have a nice day

[spooked911]

142. so what are your credentials for reading seismographs?

seriously-- this is complicated analysis, and you act like you know all about it.

[hack89]

143. I am not an expert...

but I have a graduate degree in a technical field and can understand when data is being distorted or misrepresented. The point I was making was that there was no sudden spike indicating a massive explosion as the original article said.

Now if you can show me where a real seismologist said differently I will be more than willing to admit my ignorance.

[spooked911]

145. the original graph was not a distortion, it was just a different way of

viewing the data.

In fact-- I think the graph you posted was clearly a distortion since the scales were different between the events-- this is VERY MISLEADING. The original graph showed the scales the same for all events.

In any case, I think we need an expert to tell us that it was an explosive event or not.

[Boxerfan]

147. Hack 89 you are a plant. That much is obvious.You fool no one!

I have read most everything available about WTC7. The demolition charges were planted weeks earlier. Face it, your trying to convince people who know you are a plant to believe your presumptions & not the facts.

Anyone with common sense can see it's a demolition. The responses from the Bushco crime family proves it just as much as the physical evidence.
You support terrorists-Why do you hate America?

[hack89]

148. Are you calling me a traitor?

your post is not clear.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

150. Thanks for the laugh! n/t

[carlvs]

151. Nuts!

And I was about to send an alert on that "traitor" post... :applause:

[pox americana]

144. I think the truth is pretty obvious.

As Larry himself blabbed, they pulled it. It's even pretty obvious why: it was a white elephant that Larry wanted to got off his hands as part of the deal. Done.

The real question is, how much did Giuliani know, and when did he know it?