New collapse footage of WTC7 and North Tower - Nov 2008

Quote:

---

Trish: how do you explain the pools of molten iron at the bases of the WTC towers after the debris was removed? Iron's melting point is far above the temperature generated by burning jet fuel according to what I've read.

---

High heat capacity materials held the energy released via combustion. As the heat accumulated the temperature rose. For hundreds of years people have exploited this principle (and others) to melt metals using wood fuels which in the open air burn at temperatures too low to melt most metals.

Quote:

---

Less oxygen? the buildings had big holes and the wind was blowing into them fanning the fires.

---

The speed of a jet airliner is hundreds of miles per hour. This is one to two orders of magnitude higher than the winds that normally blow through Manhattan. Of course the heat of the fire created some additional currents that entered the openings of the building below the fire and were drawn up as in a chimney. But these currents did not measure in the hundreds of miles an hour (otherwise the people escaping down the stairs would have been blown back up the stairwell).

The issue of the rate of combustion (not to be confused with the heat flux through the oven/building) is somewhat irrelevant. The same amount of energy is released (the equivalent of 900 tons of TNT) whether it took fifteen minutes to burn all the fuel, or an hour. That heat was stored in the walls and materials of the building turning those floors into a furnace hot enough to melt steel. That’s initially why the supports collapsed. When they collapsed the top segment of the building fell like an eighth of a million ton hammer twelve feet onto the next floor. With each successive crash the rate of fall accelerated, the hammer grew in weight and more energy was released. It’s physically possible for the entire fall to have taken less than nine seconds which in fact it did. Any liquid pools of steel that were on the breached floors would have still been liquid after those nine seconds.

thx,
What's your theory? That the government did it as a justification for the wars (they were planning) in Afghanistan and Iraq or that Larry Silverstein did it as an insurance scam? Did Larry work with the government, who despite having a budget of billions and billions of dollars wanted to help this individual collect insurance money?

This is the biggest insurance scam in history. This one man, that the government was in cahoots with was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes including the normally very vigilant insurance companies. You think the ceo's of these insurance companies have read Alex Jones and he should be brought in as an expert witness?

Seriously, tell us what happened. How did Larry do it and who's on his payroll?

PNAC , a 90s conservative thinktank consisting of many future Bush cronies, had a number of goals for their Orwellian vision of a future America. As they stated in their report (which had the WTC in crosshairs on the cover) they could not achieve their goals without a "New Pearl Harbor".
Building 7 which was almost completely undamaged by falling debris just happened to house all of the SEC's paperwork on the cases they were investigating in order to prosecute. Add to that the billion dollar asbestos removal bill, and suddenly 3000 american lives dont matter so much to people like Dick Cheney, who can use their deaths to achieve further goals.
WHen you look at the fact that the WTC was built to withstand 2 plane collisions each, that jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, and that no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire damage, that everyone on the scene heard many explosions, that there were pyroclastic dust cloads, and that no evidence of a jumbo size plane was pulled from that tiny 18 foot hole in the pentagon, no titanium engines, and we are told that this titanium was incinerated but paper survived, when you look at the bullshit that is the shanksville story, you can only conclude that while we may not know exactly what happened, we can sure as hell figure out that the real conspiracy story is that 19 arabs with boxcutters who couldnt pass the necessary flying tests in a twin engine Cessna somehow evaded all our air defenses and flew passenger planes unchecked for over an hour before crashing them into some of the most sensitive targets in the country. Wake up and smell the flesh burning, people. Seriously.

But what about the fact that one of the hijacker's passport survived a steel melting collision, and was found outside the WTC?

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?cat=11 But then what do firefighters know about large conflagrations?

Steel generates its own heat when under stress. That was a lot of stress.

I've never bought into the theory that the jet fuel melted anything other than some furniture & plastic plants. Especially on the second tower where most of the fuel blew out into the open air. It's kerosene & doesn't burn that hot. Not hot enough to melt a steel superstructure. I think the culprit that brought down the towers was vibration, & that the towers collapsing from the top is an optical illusion.

Highrise skyscrapers are designed to be partially fluid. They need to sway in the wind. An intense vibration, coupled with the immense weight of a building that big through a flexable structure, & you can create a liquefaction of the structure, the base, & the ground surrounding it. Basically a mini-earthquake, with the epicenter right at the building's foundation. Vibrations can & do intensify as they travel, like a cracking whip. I've personally seen a guy on a construction site shatter his wrist when the pick he was wielding hit some hard caliche. It was just vibration traveling through the handle. I've seen plastic bird protection balls on the guy cables of a radio tower set up a harmonic bounce that started the tower twisting to the point of extreme danger of collapse. When you take into account the prior damage to the foundation from the '93 bombing, the plausibility of my vibration theory becomes even more plausible. Well, in my mind anyway.

I'm not making any conspiracy claims. The planes brought down the towers. I just think the whole theory of burning kerosene melting steel & concrete makes no sense. The towers came straight down. No toppling, as would be expected if the collapse was from the point of impact. The collapse followed the pattern of an earthquake, & the first collapse would have started the process all over again at the base.

Just my 2 cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yodajazz

But what about the fact that one of the hijacker's passport survived a steel melting collision, and was found outside the WTC?

---

Well, how ironically conveinent!

9/11? Total Inside Job! I am still amazed when I meet anyone who thinks otherwise. However it pays to consider the words of Arthur Schopenhauer;

'All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.'

I reckon we are still somewhere in Stage 2, but the times they are-a-changin...

Each plane was carrying 60 tons of jet fuel. Jet fuel will of course burn at a relatively low temperature. But jet fuel is energy dense. It carries more energy per ton (in the form of chemical bonds) than almost any other compound. That why it’s an ideal fuel. The 60 tons of fuel held an energy equivalent of 900 tons of TNT. The materials of each floor of the WTC have an approximate mass of 4550 tons. If all the energy of the jet fuel was held as heat by materials of the floor on which it burned, that would be about 100 kilocalories of heat per pound of materials. A back of the envelope calculation shows that amount of energy distributed as heat throughout the floor would raise the temperature of the whole to about 2700 degrees centigrade. The melting point of steel is about 1500 degrees centigrade.

The above is just a back of the envelope calculation. Of course the energy released by the burning fuel isn’t all stored in the surrounding materials as heat. Some heat is carried away by convection and some fuel is spilled outside the tower. Surely fuel was burning on more than one floor. However, the heat that is produced isn’t necessarily evenly distributed throughout the breached floors. The heat will be stored near the points of combustion, presumably where the fuel pools. These smaller regions could store even more than 100 kcal of heat energy per pound of material.

The theory that burning jet fuel in a partially enclosed building cannot possibly melt steel is busted.

Hippiefried offers an interesting theory that some sort of vibration plays a key role in bringing down the towers. It’s worth considering but I can’t find a satisfactory driver for such an oscillation. The original impact would’ve have created oscillations traveling around and down the tower, perhaps even reflecting off the bottom and traveling back up. But sure these would’ve dampened to nothing in the time it took the towers begin their collapse. Moreover, the energy of impact waves can’t exceed the energy of the impact which is relatively small in comparison to energies we’ve just been considering. It’s a bit like expecting a tree to be toppled by the impact of a bullet. Perhaps the initial oscillations were reinforced via resonance. But this theory would require some source that would continue to drive the oscillations. What source? I have no suggestions. But it’s an honest proposal.

It is not an honest proposal when someone claims it’s a “Total Inside Job!” without so much as giving a reason. Arthur Schopenhauer, by the way, was prone to dramatic overstatement. Most truths are in fact mundane, taken at face value and immediately accepted.

Gravity isn't just a good idea. IT'S THE LAW!!

It isn't necessary for the oscillations to continue till the collapse. You just have to create enough damage at the foundation or throughout the central superstructure & let gravity do the rest. We're talking an enormous amount of weight, with 2 different structures holding it up. The elevator shafts in the center are a tubular concrete superstructure. The exoskeleton is tubular steel verticle ribs, surrounding the building & going all the way up. The individual floors span between the shafts & the exoskeleton, tying the 2 structures together & keeping everything plumb. Each story is a guy. It's a great engineering concept for keeping the building standing like it's supposed to with enough flexability to withstand high winds & other natural forces.

We're not talking natural forces here, are we? A direct explosive impact to the central superstructure at the upper floors is a whole different animal. There's no anchor at the top to dampen the reverberation from the impact. There would be whip action vibrations through each of the ribs in the exoskeleton. But the oscillations of the central structure would be a different frequency. Different material. Concrete is brittle. It can withstand tremendous downward pressure, but not shear pressures. It'll crack. The structural steel inside the concrete can't hold all that weight. It would tend to bend & twist at the shear points (cracks), adding even more stress to the concrete. I imagine the shafts were busted up from top to bottom, & so was the footing they were sitting on. The only thing holding it up was the rebar. Of course we'll never know for sure because anybody who was inspecting the superstructure at the time of the collapse is incapable of reporting their findings.

No structure is designed to take that kind of stress. They are however, designed to handle fire. Even if a case can be made for the blast furnace theory of intense heat, what's to melt? The exoskeleton didn't melt. It remained intact, despite the damage at the point of impact, right up till the collapse. I've heard claims that the structural steel inside the concrete melted. Huh? Concrete is an insulator. Besides, it's the concrete itself that's holding everything up. Not the steel inside of it. If the fire had attacked the shafts, it would have taken out the doors first & gone up the shafts. There'd be footage of flames shooting out the top of the building. Didn't happen. So far, I haven't had anybody try to insult my intellegence by telling me that this super kerosene could reach volcanic temperatures & melt or burn the concrete itself. That leaves the domino theory of melted floor anchors causing the floors to fall on top of each other, creating a chain reaction. This actually sounds plausible, but there's a problem with it. Such stress would tend to make everything push outward & away from the central structure. Steel bends. The exoskeleton would have buckled outward. It would have peeled back like a banana. The building would have exploded, leaving the elevator shafts intact. Like running your fingers down a twig & peeling off the leaves. That didn't happen. The buildings came straight down & stayed mostly within the skeletal structure until they crashed at the bottom. Every piece of footage I've seen tells me "implosion" & collapse of the central structure, dragging the skeleton down from the inside.

I'm no engineer, so I can't do the math on all this. But I'm thinking that the energy released from the burning jet fuel is miniscule compared to energy from harmonic reverberations through a hollow rigid shaft over 1500 or 2000 feet. Thump a tuning fork. You can barely hear it. But hold the base up to your forehead & the sound comes through clearly. What you're actually hearing is your skull vibrating. The forks vibrate through the base & the bone, despite the dampening from your fingers holding the base & the soft skin on your head separating the steel & bone. The frequency is controlled by the forks, & it'll keep going for a while.

It's not the 60 tons of burning fuel that brought down each tower. It's the 60 tons at high speed making impact that caused the collapse. There was no inside job. The only conspiracy was between the hijackers. The big mistake was convincing passengers to humor hijackers. That won't happen again.

Thank you thank you. I'm here all week. :D