WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

I have read all the evidence now. It's taken me a while to read... all 100 pages of this subject.

Wow, nice going gluon; took us 3 months to put it up, laugh

I must say, with the evidence in hand, it seems that the 9/11 catastrophy may be asking more questions that what it inexorably can or can't answer.

There are definitely a lot of unanswered questions concerning 9/11...

It seems very strange our any metallic structure (welded together in a building lattice) would concurrently collapse upon the interaction of a plane. How indeed the inner lattice (or the metallic structure) of the building quite literally became as weak as sandstone seems rather strange, as there is a massive amount of evidence which suggests that no building with such a structure inevitably crushes under similar conditions, and some even worse, considering how entire buildings can remain contact (and yet lay on their sides) from earthquakes.

...

Amen

 

[Headspin]

And both towers had recently acquired some portion of 200 tons of Aluminum apiece.

that doesn't sound right.

empty weight of a 757 is 58 tons according to this:
http://simviation.com/rinfo75767.htm

exclude the heavy engines which were not aluminum
and the landing gears, plastic, electronics, cables, etc.

I can't say what the amount of aluminum was from the plane, but 200 tons seems way too high.

 

[Headspin]

No, you are still missing the point.

Camera's are designed to take photons in to create a picture, if the photon output is too high it can cause a change in regards to how a picture develops. Namely if the central piece is a bright light, then the surroundings will appear dark.

There is something else that I've not mentioned to, it involves Aluminium filings and a candle. I don't suggest doing this experiment in an enclosed environment, however if you blow the filings across the candle, the cloud of aluminium will erupted into a flash. (It's the basis of Flash Powder used in Fireworks)

As you should know with fireworks, when they are shot into the sky the bright flash can linger and that's really due to fuel verses flash powder consistency, if there isn't enough powder then it will burn out, if the powders thick enough it can glow for a while before dying out.

I only mention this because Molten aluminium dripping hundreds of feet, isn't going to suddenly cool. It will glow as the velocity of the hot metal is actually fuelled by oxygen on it's decent.

You guys that don't understand Metallurgy really should check out a Foundry or two. Just if you go for a visit, don't start bombarding them with "WTC conspiracies" otherwise you'll miss what you can take in about what actually occurs with metals.

In addition, ( and i am sure I will be misunderstood by somebody ) remember that Thermite is, in one of its most common variations, simply Aluminum plus an Oxidizer ( often Iron oxide ).

Hot Aluminum burns. When it burns it makes a high temperature. While it is burning, it does not cool off. While it is burning, it gets hotter.

aluminum flash powder has different properties to non-powderized aluminum.
non-powderized aluminum will not burn, it will melt.

 

[Stryder]

I believe that Stryder erroneously believes that when it glows in the dark it also glows in daylight conditions. It's for this reason that I've asked him where he heard that aluminum can glow orange or yellow in daylight conditions.

I didn't hear Scott, I smelted some aluminium barrels down during daylight hours some years back and the molten metal glowed, this was because I went beyond it's melting point, the temperature was around 1100°C.

I know full well the reason why you guys aren't taking this in is because it messes with your understanding and theory of what happened, however I suggest you go find somewhere that smelts metal to check it out yourself rather than dealing in anecdotal evidence either supplied by myself or anyone else.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I didn't hear Scott, I smelted some aluminium barrels down during daylight hours some years back and the molten metal glowed, this was because I went beyond it's melting point, the temperature was around 1100°C.

.
But that is the problem RIGHT THERE!!!

In order to take it beyond its melting point doesn't it have to be confined in some way to keep it from flowing away from the heat source?

How is that going to happen in a fire in a building? As soon as it reached the melting point it would start flowing down hill and not reach those higher temperatures. So what sense does this conversation make? What color is it just beyond melting point? How could the fire get it any hotter than that without it being in a container with an even higher melting point?

Can we have some logic of reality here and quit trying to score points in a debate?

psik

 

[Stryder]

.
But that is the problem RIGHT THERE!!!

In order to take it beyond its melting point doesn't it have to be confined in some way to keep it from flowing away from the heat source?

How is that going to happen in a fire in a building? As soon as it reached the melting point it would start flowing down hill and not reach those higher temperatures. So what sense does this conversation make? What color is it just beyond melting point? How could the fire get it any hotter than that without it being in a container with an even higher melting point?

Can we have some logic of reality here and quit trying to score points in a debate?

psik

It's quite possible that it was Aluminium from the Aircraft, there would of been enough debris to keep it from flowing in any particular direction, especially since when people build buildings they tend to use "Liquid levels". (e.g. What hill?)

Since you are talking about floors of a building with an internal temperature of Circa 1200°C it would likely result in a "Blast Furnace" effect, while the metals would indeed melt and pool, they would be enclosed within that temperature which is double it's melting point and the temperature transfers into photon output.

As for Scoring points in a debate?

It's not a debate, it's a three ringed circus with Scott trying to be a ring leader, yourself and a few others playing the clowns and I'm left to try and clean up the Elephant Guano.

 

[Headspin]

...and if was contained in stryders container, it would reflect the glow of the container because it has a high reflectivity property, so there would be no way of determining whether the "glow" stryder saw was actual glow radiance or whether it was reflected orange light from the 1100 C container.

not one experiment has been shown to create this aluminum "glow" by pouring molten aluminum. you'd think the debunkers who have spent the last 5 years full time debunking would have put one on youtube by now if it was possible to reproduce.

 

[Uno Hoo]

The molten metal flow occurred at a damaged corner of WTC 2. How far was that from any lavatories or copper pipes, which were in the central core? The only aluminum in the vicinity was the perimeter column covers on the outside and aircraft debris inside. The flow came from inside the building. You are wrong about fluorescing only occurring in the dark. The molten metal color was yellow orange and Aluminum is silver gray in daylight. Even the NIST acknowledged this and tried to say it was Aluminum with organic matter mixed in causing the yellow orange color. The only problem there is that experiments have shown that the organic matter will not mix with molten Aluminum.

The only logical explanation for that molten material coming from that corner, just before WTC 2 collapsed, is that it was steel. This comports with the molten steel found in the rubble of only the three collapsed buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. WTC 5 and WTC 6 burned fiercely for hours but did not collapse and guess what, there wasn't any molten metal found under them.

You are obviously making guesses about my opinions. You are not making good correlations with the exact content of my posts.

I am entertaining the notion of melted steel, both possibly seen flowing and claimed to have been found solidified. Melted steel has to be considered the least likely candidate for the metal flows that were seen and photographed. So I am first considering other candidates.

Each tower had very recently had 200 tons (or whatever an airliner weighs) of Aluminum enter it through a breached wall. And Stryder has pointed out that there was Aluminum cladding on the wall exterior. Aluminum melts at a low enough temperature to be easily attained by burning jet fuel. Aluminum has to be the first candidate to explain large flows of molten metal on the outside wall.

I somehow got the impression that you knew a good bit about building construction. Maybe I got you confused with somebody else. I apologize. Somebody who knows a bit about commercial building construction knows that office buildings have a vast amount of copper electric wiring built-in in the ceiling space (coincident with the floor space in a building with a floor structure like the WTC) mainly to serve lighting fixtures. And as tenants rent and customize their spaces, electric wiring also is built-in in the walls to serve wall outlets mainly. WTC was a top-of-the-line office location. I have not researched it, but it is most likely that HVAC was executed by fan coil units in the ceiling serviced by runs of copper pipe to and from central heaters and chillers in the core area. There probably was, although I have admittedly not researched it, built-in runs of stubbed copper water piping and waste piping in regular arrays in the ceiling space to make it easy for tenants to construct executive bathrooms, kitchenets, drinking water fountains, decorative fountains, and whatever other perks the rich and famous tenants of a luxury office building might fancy. WTC was not a bottom of the line sleaze building. The sprinkler may have had steel pipes, but could well have had copper piping. The stand pipe fire department hose supplies may have been copper pipes. The water supply and soil stacks in the core area could have been copper pipes. Copper melts at a low enough temperature to be attained by burning jet fuel.

It is not really comprehensible for you to claim that molten metal could not originate in the core. On two sides of the building, there was only 35 feet between the core and the outer wall And on the other two sides there was only 65 feet. You believe that molten metal could not run across those distances to obtain an exterior wall? Please get serious.

I am much too early in new found interest in 9/11 to have very many definite opinions. My posts largely represent a work-in-progress to try to figure out the matter. As such, it will be very easy for a pundit to read a tentative thought of mine and criticize it unjustly. Please do not do that.

 

[Stryder]

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0cTY8791JU2zq
http://www.aluminiumindia.co.in/aboutus.php
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlarg...diauid={2CEDE93D-2886-43D4-B14B-5FF4116C6C4C}
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/ar...ng-aluminiums-environmental-impact-2008-09-26
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlarg...diauid={41326EE0-BBCA-4592-A530-EE6A5CE10F28}

I really do wish you kids would do your own homework.

 

[Uno Hoo]

that doesn't sound right.

empty weight of a 757 is 58 tons according to this:
http://simviation.com/rinfo75767.htm

exclude the heavy engines which were not aluminum
and the landing gears, plastic, electronics, cables, etc.

I can't say what the amount of aluminum was from the plane, but 200 tons seems way too high.

Thanks for you in your correction of my numbers. I was writing too fast and relying too much on a tired brain with an old worn out memory in the first place.

58 tons is not much, after all, is it? I bet it would make such a small flow down the wall that nobody would even notice it. :bugeye:

 

[shaman_]

I'm not going to be reading through 180 page documents just because you think it has evidence in your favour. I'm amenable to reading -1- page from an outside source; leopold frequently doesn't even want to do that.

You did not know what they were. I pointed you to the document. Are you refusing to even acknowledge that it exists? I don't expect you to read the whole thing but to refuse to even look at it because it is too long is just another dodge. Again you ignore any evidence that might damage your conspiracy. You aren't after the truth you just want to maintain your 911 religion.

Perhaps when someone releases 'The NIST Report for Dummies' you will have less opportunity to make excuses.

 

[Headspin]

http://www.daylife.com/photo/0cTY8791JU2zq
http://www.aluminiumindia.co.in/aboutus.php
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlarg...diauid={2CEDE93D-2886-43D4-B14B-5FF4116C6C4C}
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/ar...ng-aluminiums-environmental-impact-2008-09-26
http://pro.corbis.com/search/Enlarg...diauid={41326EE0-BBCA-4592-A530-EE6A5CE10F28}

I really do wish you kids would do your own homework.

smelting bauxite aluminum-ore, molten aluminum in a glowing container, darkened conditions.

none of these show molten aluminum being poured in daylight conditions.

we've been here before months ago.

 

[shaman_]

no, it was the opposite corner, the one where the planes nose exited the south tower.

So it is quite possible that parts of the plane were nearby? You know where I’m going with this.

Nope, distinctive molten copper was not reported by anyone. experts on the scene reported molten steel and molten metal. none reported molten copper.

Firefighters don’t go through a ‘spot the molten metal’ course.

what makes you think your speculation trumps expert witnesses such as cleanup engineers and firefighters who were there and witnessed it.

Because there have been many cases where claims of ‘molten steel’ are shown to be doubtful. There have been several attempts to pass photos and accounts of glowing metal as molten steel. It is clear that scepticism is needed here because Jones and the others are trying very hard to pass off any account of molten or red material as evidence for molten steel.

you were not there, they were there. you are not an expert, they are experts that are capable of recognising what they saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBNkw2Vvi28

Firemen are not experts at identifying the contents of molten material by looking at it.

do you have one witness that reported the distinctive molten aluminium?

That only reinforces my point. If there was molten steel wouldn’t there have been other molten metals with a lower temperature as well? If you have molten steel at those temperatures there must have been some other metals affected. Why did no one mention these? According to you the members of the clean up crews can identify the contents of molten material simply by looking at it. Could it be that when people, yes even firefighters, see molten material they tend to refer to is as steel?

Again, these are expert witnesses who were there on the scene, but you know better as to what they saw?

It is interesting how truthers pick and choose when to rely on witness testimony.

There is plenty of testimony from the firefighters of the gradual decline of WTC7 and how they were sure it was going to collapse because of the damage and the fires. Do you need me to find some for you? They were there. You were not. They are more likely to be able to conclude that a building is leaning and damaged to the point where it might collapse than they are going to be able to analyse molten material by looking at it.


There are also witness accounts of bowing seen minutes, not seconds, but minutes before the collapse of one of the towers. People are capable of recognizing when a line isn’t straight. This is also more likely to be accurate than cleanup crews being able to identify molten steel simply by looking at it.

These last two, particularly the testimony of WTC7 support the official story but are ignored by truthers. Yet they vigorously defend the clean up crews and their testimony when they think it is going to support the conspiracy.


...and once again, how does molten material, seen significant time after the collapse support the idea of bombs or thermate/thermite/nanothermite? That stuff doesn’t burn slowly for great lengths of time. Does it?

a sample was collected from the bridge, prior to wtc7 falling.
this proves the sample came from one of the twin towers.
it proves that it was not clenaup contamination
it proves that it did not form in the rubble pile.
the spherical nature of the iron-aluminum spheres proves it was previously molten.

Why was this dust sample collected?

Has Jones compared the results to dust taken from other building fires where the was severe structural damage?

"They believed that temperatures around 1000C and sulfur caused the partial erosion" ??
believed? are they scientists or priests?

Oh here we go… You need to latch on to words and play games with their interpretation just so you can form a response.. You knew what I meant. It is clear what they thought happened; you just don’t like their conclusions.

what you are really saying is that they cannot prove much other than speculate.

They are experts in structural and fire protection engineering. They were at ground zero and the scrap yards. They found no evidence for high temperatures, incendiaries or explosives at all. Further analysis on some of the steel was entirely consistent with this. Were you there? What makes you think your analysis is worth more than theirs?

"temperatures around 1000C" - no, this is incorrect.
what they determined was the temperature was above 1000 Celcius,

In the document posted they said the temperature approached 1000C. The ‘above 1000C’ was your interpretation.

in the same way that 5000 C or 10000 C is above 1000 C.

Even if we run with your interpretation you are still shoehorning evidence to fit your conclusion. Above 1000C means above 1000C. It does not mean ‘probably 2000’ it just means above 1000C. So you are still without any compelling evidence for extremely high temperatures.

what they are saying is that 1000C is a minimum temperature, not a maximum.

"...examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940°C were experienced..."
http://springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Okay, but 940C is not unusual.

where does it say that?

Actually I retract that, they gave no estimates of temperatures for the steel analyzed from WTC1+2. The only comments I can find is that it was subjected to different conditions.

 

[Stryder]

smelting bauxite aluminum-ore, molten aluminum in a glowing container, darkened conditions.

none of these show molten aluminum being poured in daylight conditions.

we've been here before months ago.

Well the World Trade Center collapsed years ago and we are still going on about it. Haven't you got some Volcano's to worry about or something more current and imminent in regards to being a threat?

I place is as plain as possible to you:

The buildings were old enough to have been put through various temperature changes (Expansions and Retraction) and tremor's from various sources (Like the original Bomb Attempt) which Soliton vibrations could of undermined structurally.

The buildings were hit by Planes, that destroyed the structural integrity through both the impact and impending fire.

If there was to be a Truth Movement or Conspiracy, then you really should be focusing on "Why wasn't the attack detected considering the potential surveillance operation's?" (Based upon the current available technologies and methods available to most countries now), if there was any failings or hidden agenda's done by any rogue element of a government, it would of occurred right at the very beginning.

Why put demolitions in a building if you could actually manipulate people to hijack aircraft in the first place with the plan of flying into specific targets? (I guess you could place this as an Occam's Razor point.)

 

[Uno Hoo]

The molten metal flow occurred at a damaged corner of WTC 2. How far was that from any lavatories or copper pipes, which were in the central core? The only aluminum in the vicinity was the perimeter column covers on the outside and aircraft debris inside. The flow came from inside the building. You are wrong about fluorescing only occurring in the dark. The molten metal color was yellow orange and Aluminum is silver gray in daylight. Even the NIST acknowledged this and tried to say it was Aluminum with organic matter mixed in causing the yellow orange color. The only problem there is that experiments have shown that the organic matter will not mix with molten Aluminum.

The only logical explanation for that molten material coming from that corner, just before WTC 2 collapsed, is that it was steel. This comports with the molten steel found in the rubble of only the three collapsed buildings, WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. WTC 5 and WTC 6 burned fiercely for hours but did not collapse and guess what, there wasn't any molten metal found under them.

I have an interesting personal anecdotal experience to tell you about fluorescing in daylight and in the dark.

All my life i have been a car enthusiast. Long ago and far away, I owned one of the most cherished of the Chrysler 300s. I ran the car hard at times. It had the stock cast iron exhaust manifolds. Many times i ran the car hard and soon after popped the hood to make sure nothing really important had fallen off. Always in daylight. The cast iron exhaust manifolds never caught my attention. They always looked perfectly normal even though they were obviously quite hot.

One fine night i took my car out for a romp and shamefully illegally again did the ton and more. (Do not drive illegally!. I am not telling this tale to encourage illegal driving!.) For one reason or another i pulled off the road and looked under the hood. The cast iron exhaust manifolds were glowing bright red. Pretty as a Christmas tree. They never had looked that way in daylight.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Well the World Trade Center collapsed years ago and we are still going on about it. Haven't you got some Volcano's to worry about or something more current and imminent in regards to being a threat?

I place is as plain as possible to you:


If there was to be a Truth Movement or Conspiracy, then you really should be focusing on "Why wasn't the attack detected considering the potential surveillance operation's?" (Based upon the current available technologies and methods available to most countries now), if there was any failings or hidden agenda's done by any rogue element of a government, it would of occurred right at the very beginning.

Why put demolitions in a building if you could actually manipulate people to hijack aircraft in the first place with the plan of flying into specific targets? (I guess you could place this as an Occam's Razor point.)

"Why put demolitions..."

Since I have finally found a site displaying the Structural Blueprints, I have been impressed with the great structural strength, generally speaking, designed into the twin towers.

It is entirely likely that any villains who studied these Blueprints would have doubted that an airplane strike alone would be sure to do the dirty job. The twin towers were a hell of a strong structural design, even if including anticipations of what would happen in the exact moments of a strike by a huge, fast airplane. Since such a strike might be anticipated to have, let's say, a 50-50 chance of bringing them down, villains could have decided to make it a sure bet by placing demolition material. Then the villains could have a plausible cover story, plus they could be certain of the success of their foul deed.

 

[leopold]

You're wrong. A mechanical engineer from Ireland brought it up in a video. I forget his name, however.

the videos that i've seen shows the showers of sparks coming from one window of one corner, no other such showers are obvious. i have no idea how this unknown man can claim otherwise.

I'd argue that you're missing out on some really good stuff; but ultimately if you refuse to hear the evidence I have to offer, there's really nothing more I can do.

i have no problems with the evidence you offer.
i begin to question it when it seems to come mostly from one source though.

uh, leo, you get all confused up again?

i didn't know (Q) was no longer a mod.

 

[Uno Hoo]

A corner in a face, sure. The other corners were apparently also undergoing thermitic reactions, but only white smoke was visible, not molten metal.



From 9/11 Research's Molten Metal article:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3





9/11 Research's article Aluminothermic Residues quotes Steven Jones in his peer reviewed paper Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07:
The iron-rich component of the WTC dust sample was analyzed in some detail by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). Using the scanning electron microscope, we found that much of the iron-rich dust was in fact composed of roughly spherical particles * microspheres. The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information.

Iron melts at 1538ºC, so the presence of these numerous iron-rich spheres implies a very high temperature. Too hot in fact for the fires in the WTC buildings since jet fuel (kerosene), paper and wood furniture * and other office materials * cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt iron or steel.




9/11 Research is fully aware of that and makes a pointed remark concerning this very issue at the beginning of its article Aluminothermic Residues:
****
Scientific studies of dust fallout of the World Trade Center destruction conducted within months of the attack contain a wealth of data about the dust's distribution, physical forms, and chemical composition. Although this data raised a number of interesting questions -- such as how the dust came to contain high levels of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and barium -- it remained mostly unexamined for years. Even FEMA's disclosure of profound corrosive sulfidation of steel members failed to elicit follow-up studies by official bodies, with NIST avoiding the subject entirely.

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.
****




Can you refresh my memory on the interpretation of the USGS on this? In any case, I found this choice passage in the USGS survey:

The dust and girder coating samples are substantially more variable in their trace element compositions than in their major element compositions. In most dust samples, zinc is the predominant trace metal, with concentrations as high as 3000 parts per million. With the exception of one sample that is high in barium (WTC01-16), the trace metals barium, lead, copper, and chromium are present in concentrations of hundreds of parts per million.​

Steven Jones makes the importance of this more clear in his analysis of the WTC dust:
DR. STEVEN JONES- 9/11- THERMATE EVIDENCE PART 5 From what I've heard, barium is a rather toxic element and shouldn't be in the WTC buildings. -However-, thermate is 29% barium nitrate.

When i read of this evidence of iron spheres on one of the sites i have researched, I was very impressed that something highly unusual must have taken place on 9/11.

 

[psikeyhackr]

It's quite possible that it was Aluminium from the Aircraft, there would of been enough debris to keep it from flowing in any particular direction, especially since when people build buildings they tend to use "Liquid levels". (e.g. What hill?)

.
So we are supposed to believe the floor is LEVEL after being hit by an airplane doing 500+ mph but at the same time believe the plane could make the entire building with this LEVEL floor collapse in less than an hour.

I can see who the clown in the circus is.

Debating bullshit that can "rationalize" anything. ROFL

psik

 

[leopold]

It is very important to notice that the WTC was not equivalent structurally to anything previously designed. My new found understanding of its structure makes me believe that comparison to any other tall building that had been involved in fire is unfair. No previous building had been designed to be so robust. But no previous building had such a possible Achilles Heel.

what's this achilles heel you mentioned?

It is also very important to notice that it is probably very unlikely that conspirators would have discovered the possible Achilles Heel. There is not really any such thing as a smart crook. In my opinion, conspirators would have decided that the columns needed to be weakened by Thermite. Therefore, ironically, Keystone Kops Konspirators could very well have gone to excruciating clandestine labors to place Thermite, probably in locations other than Achilles Heel locations, in addition to orchestrating aircraft strikes.

Stalemate.

keystone kop konspirators? do you realize what would be involved if this was an inside job? you not only have to rig the building for demolition but you must also find someone willing to fly a planeload of passengers into it, all without anyone saying a word.