The standard way to demolish a steel-framed building is to apply cutter charges to the supporting beams. Normally, the cutter charges are high-explosives strapped to a metal wedge on the side of the beam. There is a science to placing the charges in such a way that the building falls inward.It requires a great deal of expertise to keep a tall building from toppling over sideways.
Many scientists and engineers have looked at the way the WTC towers fell and remarked that it had the appearance of controlled demolition.The buildings collapsed symmetrically, and fell straight down.The speed of the fall indicated that the buildings were collapsing unimpeded.They must have had the “legs” simultaneously pulled out from under them, because a layered collapse from the top down would have taken several minutes, whereas the observed collapse took place in less than 20 seconds. But the conjecture has been that the cutter charges consisted not of explosives but of finely-powdered aluminum mixed with iron oxide, with added sulfur.This mixture contains both fuel and oxidant – it needs no air – and it burns hot enough to melt steel.The trade name for this product is “Thermate.”
In addition to the speed and symmetry of collapse, another anomaly in the WTC collapse was the violent explosions. Firemen reported earthshaking blasts from the basement before collapse, and the impact areas in the upper floorss of the buildings exploded just at the onset of collapse. Jet fuel burns but cannot explode.
In an article published this week in the journal Environmentalist, chemical engineer Kevin Ryan collects evidence from EPA documents that suggest there was both Thermate and high-explosives in the debris from the WTC collapse.Ryan was formerly employed by Environmental Health Labs, a division of Underwriters Labs, before he was fired for raising these and other questions.
Fires at the WTC site persisted for weeks after 9/11, despite firefighters’ use of water and chemical extinguishers to smother the flames.This suggests that it was a fuel-oxidant mixture that was burning.Pools of red-hot molten iron could not have been caused by burning jet fuel or building materials, because these burn at a much lower temperature than steel melts.
Ryan’s evidence consists in traces of 1,3-diphenylpropane as well as sulfur and particulate matter, reported by the EPA to have appeared in spikes continuing as late as March, 2002.Ryan believes that these came from brief, intense fires ignited by the molten steel when it came in contact with yet-unburned plastic building materials during the clean-up process.
Josh Mitteldorf was educated to be an astrophysicist, and has branched out from there to mathematical modeling in a variety of areas. He has taught mathematics, statistics, and physics at several universities. He is an avid amateur pianist, and father of two adopted Chinese girls. This year, his affiliation is with the University of Arizona, where he studies the evolution of aging.
That Bush openly admits to having broken the law (to "protect" the laws) has had virtually no impact on the opposition party that refuses to impeach. Actually, you could argue that Bush has been empowered by the apathy of the democrats. It is blatantly clear those buildings came down with more help than just the planes. One, astoninshingly, came down that wasn't even hit. My own rep, Bill Delahunt, D-MA, couldn't be less interested in the truth. Truth--shmuth. The most important thing to him (and Pelosi and Conyers) is that the dems get elected. Nothing else matters.9/11, FISA, the Constitution.......none of it. I have now gone green, officially. This has to get worse before it gets better.
by
Nick van Nes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 179 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM
Very good article. Anyone with a brain knows that the official conspiracy theory is rubbish. In fact a large majority of Americans do not believe the official conspiracy theory anymore. However, that has little effect on our government. Which speaks volumes about the nature of American democracy in the 21st Century.
Stirling
by
Lord Stirling (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 141 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM
"Fires at the WTC site persisted for weeks after 9/11" -- This is inaccurate. There were no fires burning below ground, no molten metal. Check your facts. Water applied to "Pools of red hot molten iron" would have caused massive steam explosions -- none of which were ever reported.
Check the video evidence of the "collapse". At what temperature does steel turn to dust?
see www.drjudywood.com
by
Digitboy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 4:34:51 PM
Where did you get your information, digitboy? I was a volunteer for a week at the site and handed out boots to the rescue workers who swapped their melted ones for new ones multiple times per day, for having come NEAR the molten metal.
by
Susan Guest (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 82 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 4:40:14 PM
I'm going to give you the opportunity to describe the process (since you can't spell it) of molecular disassociation as it refers to the melting of the workers boots at the 9-11 site.
Here's the deal toeboy, explain it in lay terms and describe the process which caused the molecules of the boots to disassociate themselves from one another. If you can do it and it makes sense then you'll be considered an expert in the field of molecular engineering. If you can't then you have to silently, admit to being a loud mouth moron who hasn't got a clue as to what he's talking about (sort of like the president) and refrain from ever offering your opinion on OpEd again. Deal? OK, Go.....
by
PeterJ (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 165 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 7:24:40 PM
It's all a bunch of bandied hog-wash! I was on the 68th floor of Tower 1 and fortunately I am/was in great shape, so all my years of long distance running/training paid off big time. Let's face the facts and get past the "dysmorphia", I do know for a fact that serious charges and issues remain. It is of no consequence at this point to offer theories about what happened. It's the price that we pay for living in an intolerant world and allowing for the comingling of religion and politics. Remeber the ol' seration of Church and State that we are supposed to adhere to? Well, this is the fallout, quite literally when those rules are ignored or alltogether suspended. Ignorance is NOT a disability, it's a pathetic excuse for our over-saturated lazy population.
by
Elliott Van Reamer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 12:45:08 PM
Hello Digit (is that "single"? or an IQ matter), I was there for years, and YES! the fires did indeed burn for weeks. I transferred to the Berkshire building at Water Street for the next three months until I got a new office, and each and every day all of the workers in the District had to walk through filthy dangerous air every day. Do your research and see how many people Post 9/11 are dead due to the environs that caused them mesothelioma or some other rapturous disease. I care not to try to influence your views, or to create a challenge for you here. I believe that you will do very well with challenges on your own accord. Grow up.
by
Elliott Van Reamer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM
There are several videos of molten steel pouring from the building as well as video of streams of molten metal in the streets flowing over the sidewalk into the streets. In addition, there are numerious pieces of steel with melt and high temperature sulfur eutectic corrosion (numerious authors published this specific evidence). Finally, there are blast errosion of the red oxide paint and steel surface visible on most pieces of the structural members.
Do you really think you can prove a negative?
by
Guesswhotoo6 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments)
on Thursday, August 7, 2008 at 11:16:18 AM
Thermite burns fast and completely. There would be no residual burning for days. Using the shaped charges, which are actually contained within a copper "tube" with a v-notch on the beam side of the charge, they slice through the beams not because of heat but because the copper forms a shaped charge that moves at hypersonic velocity and litterly slices the steal by kinetic energy, not by explosive heat. Nothing remains to continue burning because it is consumed instantly and there is relativley little explosive actually used.
In deliberatly demolished buildings there is no "after burn" that is offered to support intentional destruction. No fire at all. Why do these people think that it would suddenly be present in the WTC?
As for the statement about explosions down below, these planes were trans-continental flights chosed for the attack because they would have full fuel tanks. The center of the WTC is open elevator shafts which could allow thousands of gallons a fuel to rain down, mixing with the air in the shaft. Fires above would create a chimney effect pulling in air to mix with this fuel from the bottom. Kerosene-air mixture would certainly be explosive. Molten metal and sparks and flaming debris from the fires would could rain down the same shafts igniting this mixture in the core of the building.
Also watch the video of the collapse. In each case the towers collapsed down from the point of impact, not from the bottom. The very nature of the structure of the towers with a strong outer steel frame would act as a natural "tunnel" for the loosly connected floors to fall through as they lost support.
There will always be people convinced our government is "out to get them".
I don't think the government is actually "out to get us", rather, they are out to manipulate us to the benefit of their big money corporate sponsors. They need us to keep spending money in order for their big donors to rake in the coin.
Bush & Cheney have taken a tragic event and turned it to personal advantage to the benefit of their oil buddies. Actually I think it was Cheney as Bush is not smart enough.
by
Paul Kruger (33 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 275 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 4:46:12 PM
Ask any fire fighter in the hills of West Virginia about a coal mine fire. They have been known to burn for years with no special oxidant other than the air that is drawn in one shaft as smoke poors out another.
WTC had thousands of tons of flamable materials inside a closed space. Heat rises. In the process it creates a chimney effect that sucks in fresh air...in this case through subway tunnels which could supply as much air as was needed to burn until nothing was left. It was impossible to direct water at the burning materials through all the debris piled on top.
by
Paul Kruger (33 articles, 1 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 275 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 4:53:22 PM
From what I understand, the elvator shafts were sealed, there was no one elevator shaft running the whole length of the towers. These shafts were sealed precisely to prevent air being sucked in a chimney effect in case of fire.
by
Vierotchka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 7:35:01 PM
Also, look at the plans... the shafts didn't run top to bottom (they kinda designed it that way so a fire wouldn't corrupt the entire building. kind of amazing how architects take those things into consideration BEFORE they build them, huh?)
by
scott creighton (25 articles, 11 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 244 comments)
on Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 9:44:19 AM
“As for the statement about explosions down below, these planes were trans-continental flights chosed for the attack because they would have full fuel tanks. The center of the WTC is open elevator shafts which could allow thousands of gallons a fuel to rain down, mixing with the air in the shaft. Fires above would create a chimney effect pulling in air to mix with this fuel from the bottom. Kerosene-air mixture would certainly be explosive. Molten metal and sparks and flaming debris from the fires would could rain down the same shafts igniting this mixture in the core of the building.”
The planes fuel tanks were about half full.
Most of the fuel burned off. Little available to cascade down the -multiple- shafts . Not an ‘open’ elevator shaft. Most did not access the basement level.
Fires were not intense. Ultimately simply burning office furniture. Insufficient.. even by NIST’s own tests, to cause the initiation of collapse.
You are simply repeating nonsense from JREF.
by
richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 863 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 8:02:35 PM
And you, richard, are only repeating the nonsense of the Movement. I guess you'll get a gold star for that much. I really find the "science" that Truthers use - quaint. Star Trek woul dbe proud of you folks.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 4 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 1766 comments)
on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 at 9:53:58 PM
and you look so quaint with your little boy scout uniform on. Aren't you a little old to be so easily mis-led by a gang of power-money hungry war mongers with the promise of travel and adventure?
It amazes me that anyone with a brain enough to support themselves can't see past basic physics and common sense, but then, I'll bet you still live with Mommy.
by
PeterJ (13 articles, 2 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 165 comments)
on Friday, August 8, 2008 at 8:38:49 AM
First, note this is sending the fox to investigate the ransacking of the henhouse -- a completely interested party investigating its own branch of government. More or less like the Zelikow (Kean/Hamilton) 9/11 Commission.
I see so many hipshots in this exchange, I want to make a comment about the logic of the so-called 9/11 truth movement:
For the government's scenario (the official conspiracy theory) to stand, it must supply credible answers to the questions addressed to it. It is not necessary for the questioners to put together alternative explanations that satisfactorily answer all these questions in order for them to demonstrate that there are problems with the official explanation.
The multiple reports of (for example) molten metal are simply something to take into account. The official scenario certainly does not contain them as a plausible outcome -- any more than it satisfactorily explains the towers collapsing into their own footprints.
I recommend a book entitled Debunking 9/11 Debunking by David Ray Griffin -- the best summing up of the weaknesses of the official scenario that I've seen, and it builds on two fine preliminary volumes, The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Any of these books will get you thinking and examining in new ways.
by
editnetwork (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 56 comments)
on Monday, August 11, 2008 at 5:23:21 PM
The Kruger "tunnel" hypothesis is ludicrous, no report I've seen refers to the outer walls as strong, quite the contrary.
I didn't see you address the question of why the huge central steel columns were completely collapsed. They were spcifically designed to withstand such an impact. Nothing was left standing.
Do you think that the Bush/Cheney cabal's only interest was oil, and that only in the aftermath did they manipulate the truth? What about the interests of the military indust
