|
Reply:
president of Tully Constructio
Replied by( Noman)
Replied on (16/Oct/2006)
president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told this reporter he had seen pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center, where his company had been contracted to re
<< Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told this reporter he had seen pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center, where his company had been contracted to remove debris, weeks after the three towers collapsed.
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, wrote the clean-up plan for the WTC and confirmed the presence of molten metal at the site.
"Yes," Loizeaux said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said.
The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," he said. Loizeaux also confirmed that molten iron had been found in the rubble of WTC 7, the tower owned by Larry Silverstein which was neither hit by an airplane nor severely damaged, but which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon of 9/11.
In 2005, Jones began investigating the collapse of WTC 7 and the large amounts of molten iron seen falling from the burning South Tower. These two subjects remain completely unexplained in the official literature on 9/11. >>
"Exposing the hidden hand of international Zionism"
On Spike TV's show Metal of Honor,if I remember correctly, the iron workers who took apart the remains of the towers stated that buried metal, when brought to 'light' (unearthed) would start to burn when exposed to oxygen, so if I understand the properties of thermite correctly-that this compound ingnites in presence of oxygen, its possible the thermal picture would not show what happened because the iron was still buried and thus not igniting.
If the show is re-run I will take accurate notes. According to it, and this I did write down,"last fire extinguished at WTC on Dec. 19, 2001. (unquote)
Hopefully this will end the confusion as to whether or not there was molten steel at Ground Zero.....r o n
http://www.investigate911.com/moltensteel.htm
Molten Steel At Ground Zero
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers
collapsed:
Only Thermite/Themate would cause Ground Zero to burn for three months after 9/11/01.
Thermite is used to demolish buildings. Even heavy rains and snow were unable to extinguish the molten steel at Ground Zero.
What kind of person would deny there was molten steel at Ground Zero?
Despite all the N.Y. Firemen's testimony, all the photographs and videotapes of molten steel at Ground Zero, certain individuals INSIST there was NO molten steel at Ground Zero. Lordy, Lordy. This is the kind of ignorance and subterfuge we're up against.
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
Even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
Even though it rained heavily again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
the fires and molten steel were sprayed with high tech fire-retardants,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
"firetrucks sprayed a nearly constant jet of water on "Ground Zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
(pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
-------Original Message-------
From: Dick Eastman
Date: 9/16/2006 2:18:54 PM
To: KenJenkins@aol.com; joestokes@sbcglobal.net; jckmbrown@yahoo.com; esalter1@mindspring.com; econrn@cox-internet.com; DrBob@bowman2006.com; dmorso@netzero.com; dbturner@fuse.net; davraygrif@cox.net; cjones427@verizon net; chossudovsky@videotron.ca; cnp@hal-pc.org; cecilie@jewishvoiceforpeace org; bulbus@optonline.net; apfn@apfn.net; ANIBANNANY@aol.com; andy@oldbarnvt com; Andrew.Fritts@primedia.com; a.d.k@sympatico.ca; jwalter@reopen911.org; justicequest2000@yahoo.com; foppe.dykstra@yahoo.com; jewish_from_brooklyn@yahoo.com; jfetzer@d.umn.edu; fksmart@gmail.com; 911Issues@yahoogroups.com; 911cd@cox.net; lark2@cassiopaea.com; Corvuswire
Subject: Re: The "molten metal proof", in Eastman's mythical reply to Mark Ferran
Mark Feren,
I have not seen any reply from you until about 10 minutes ago.
I have the specific photographs and statements by witnesses and officials and the commission itself.
If you will post your statement to me in a major debate list -- I will make you eat your words there.
You cannot omit what witnesses reported and then assert things in contradiction to what they say and cover it all up by copying a lot of information about steel from a book to lend authority to your deception and salting your deception with a lot of truisms like "red hot steel is not molten" etc. which although true has nothing to do with the fact that molten
(liquid) metal was reported.
I will not waste my energy writng in a Cc letter to a half dozen people so that you be hung out to dry and no one see it.
This message is being Bcc'd to 9 9-11 investigator lists.
I suggest the911coverup, 911TruthAction or truthabout911 yahoogroups.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ferran
To: jfetzer@d.umn.edu ; KenJenkins@aol.com ; Steve Jones
Cc: 911issues@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: The "molten metal proof", in Eastman's mythical reply to Mark Ferran
I have received nothing as a Reply from Mr. Dick Eastman (who recently discovered that a commercial airplane crashed into the Pentagon on 9-11). I typically do not respond to the things that Dick Eastman says. I respond now to the fragment of that a mythical "reply" that is endorsed by Ken Jenkins, who is supposedly an engineer by education.
First of all, there is NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE of any literally liquid "molten steel" or "molten" iron at World Trade Center piles whatsoever: No photographs; no scientific observations, NO SAMPLES. There are only statements made by workmen referring to "red hot" steel, which is not molten" (liquid) metal.
For example, this statement: ‘They showed us many fascinating slides’ he continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’
Liquid "molten" iron/steel is not merely "red hot". Iron that is merely red-hot" is not "molten" liquid metal.
Other non-scientific witness statements referring to "molten" metal fail to indicate "pools" of liquid steel, but rather merely red-hot (burning) solid steel. For example:
Reflections in the Wake of September 11:
Visit to Ground Zero, New York City
by Father Edward A. Malloy, CSC
[...] Eddie and I walked down into the depths of the South Tower, Building Two, which was the first to collapse. Large front end loaders were engaged in their task. Gigantic cranes were lifting pieces of steel weighing tons, some of which were being placed on the back of semi trucks. Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke.
The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down.
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/reflect/malloydiary.html
Molten (liquid) steel is not "red" hot. Molten steel is basically "white"
hot. "Molten" steel is not capable of being "brought up" by "front-end loaders". Molten steel would Fuse to or melt the steel buckets of front-end loaders and other equipment employed at the clean up at ground zero. The observer quoted above refers to temperatures of 1500 F, which is only half of the temperature needed to produce or maintain liquid ("molten") steel.
It is clear that the witnesses' references to "molten" steel are imprecise by scientific standards, and refer merely to red-hot SOLID structural steel, which necessarily was/is burning/oxidizing at the rate that oxygen was filtering into the piles.
All the photographs of supposedly "molten" metal are photographs of merely red-hot (burning) SOLID structural steel, not "molten" (liquid) ferrous
metal. Workmen operating machines into the supposedly "molten" (liquid)
steel would have reported the destruction of their machines, since molten steel will destroy tool-steel and hydraulic pistons and hoses. None such
occurred. Further, the removal of alleged "pools of molten steel" at the
bottom of the piles would have been an extremely difficult undertaking, requiring at least highly specialized equipment (e.g., titanium tools) or high explosives, none of which were used at the constantly-observed clean up at the bottom of Ground Zero. So, either "pools of molten steel" at the bottoms of the WTC buildings are STILL THERE, or they NEVER EXISTED.
Professor Jones produced a photograph and a sample of a "previously molten"
material that only resembles BLACK iron OXIDE slag, (not pure un-oxidized iron or steel metal) which he determined was "predominantly iron" or "rust"
and this previously molten material was solidified in a ropey mass on the Side of a basement Wall, and did NOT FLOW DOWN to the bottom of the piles
into a "pool". IT COOLED ON THE WALL BEFORE IT COULD FLOW DOWN INTO A
POOL". So much for your super-insulation theory. Professor Jones has persistently REFUSED to publish the complete ASSAY (list of elemental components and proportions) in the samples of previously "molten" material that he obtained. This indicates that the substance may contain too much Oxygen to support his theories and conjectures, and that Jones knows that it is predominantly IRON OXIDE, and not unoxidized iron metal. Additionally, Jones has failed to report the melting-temperature of the samples he obtained. I have heard that Jones has been suspended from BYU pending an investigation, presumably based on allegations of Jones' intellectual dishonesty. It is intellectually dishonest for Jones to reveal only selected portions of the test results (Assays) of the (slag) samples he obtained, for example omitting to disclose the quantity of oxygen and all
other elements in the previously molten substance.
The theories premised on large quantities of liquid steel or "pools of molten" steel (much more than would be necessary to destroy the buildings) is and continues to be pure fantasy and deliberate misrepresentation of the
available evidence. Even Professor Jones, in his original paper,
misrepresents the evidence, and invented "molten" metal out of merely red-hot" solid structural steel:
QUOTE:
Introduction
We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7. A video clip provides eye-witness evidence regarding this metal at ground zero: http://plaguepuppy net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv . The photograph below by Frank Silecchia shows a chunk of the hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9-11. Notice the color of the lower portion of the extracted metal — this tells us much about the temperature of the metal and provides important clues regarding its composition, as we shall see.
UNQUOTE.
The supposed "evidence" of liquid "molten" steel/iron is all merely red-hot SOLID steel (I-beams and rebar) that was BURNING/OXIDIZING in the piles but was NOT Melted during nor after the collapse of the WTC towers.
°F °C °K
Faint Red 930 500 770
Blood Red 1075 580 855
*Aluminum Melts 1221 660 933
Medium Cherry 1275 690 965
Cherry 1375 745 102
Bright Cherry 1450 790 106
Salmon 1550 845 111
Dark Orange 1630 890 116
Orange 1725 940 1215
Lemon 1830 1000 1270
Light Yellow 1975 1080 1355
White 2200 1205 1480
*Structural Steel ~2750 ~1510 ~178
Melts
*Iron Melts 2800 1538 1811
"Red-hot" I-beams and Red-hot Rebar is NOT liquid "molten" metal.
Additionally, there is a perfect explanation (hypothesis) for the production of the "previously molten" Iron Oxide Slag identified by Professor Jones.
This molten Slag is likely the other side of the story of the seemingly
vaporized"/missing structural steel, which appeared like "swiss cheese".
Here is a photograph of the thinned structural steel that Professor Jones fixated upon:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/fig1.gif
http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2006/06/341368.gif
These I-beams are obviously MISSING significant amounts of the mass of steel that they were originally formed with. Where did this Lost Mass of steel
(iron) GO? It did not sublimate or "vaporize" away, since the temperature of "vaporized" (gaseous) steel would have also Melted (liquefied) the remaining portions of the I-beams. So, how did the lost mass of steel get separated from the remaining steel? The missing steel was transformed into Iron Oxide(s) (and/or Iron Sulfides) by the process of Oxidation at the surface of the steel. Then, the iron oxides fell off and stayed in the piles.
"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel
microstructure ... Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of
heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel.
This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid ...." http://www.tms org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
At these temperatures (~1,000ºC), the small amounts of chromium in the
structural steel also burns/oxidizes. Possibly, chromium oxide is
immiscible in liquid iron-oxide slag, and thus was separated from that flowing molten ferrous material sampled by Professor Jones. The traditional method of producing chromium from its Iron-Chromium-Oxide ore (Chromite
http://www.galleries.com/minerals/oxides/chromite/chromite.htm) indicates that Chromium is easily SEPARATED from the IRON merely by "AIR OXIDATION".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_oxide
Professor Jones acknowledged the great abundance of iron oxides "rust" in the allegedly previously "molten" residue of the burning piles: "The abundance of iron ... is indicated by the reddish rust observed."
The structural steel and other things in the burning piles OXIDIZED/BURNED red-hot" (and at an estimated 1000C, and hotter) and flaked away even hotter iron-oxide combustion residue off its surfaces. This iron-oxide combustion residue contained oxygen and some of it might have become an oxidizer for other materials in the piles, e.g., other metals (as suggested by Professor
Jones) or other uncombusted substances in the piles carbon soot, carbon monoxide,, etc.. A secondary combusion of carbon dioxide being oxidized by dropped iron oxide could produce molten iron/oxide which became or remained a molten (liquid) mass, and flowed as a slag to the lowest local point in the rubble, and then penetrated a gap in a basement wall, where it emerged and cooled, and was later found solidified in that location.
"ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to." http://www.prisonplanet com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm
2000F is NOT hot enough to produce or maintain "molten" iron/steel.
The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" any, let alone significant quantities of, iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e.,
combustion" of some sort). Professor Jones assumes that all the
carbonaceous "combustible" matter in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers). Perhaps it did, by weeks after the
collapse. But Professor Jones obviously does not comprehend that the hot,
red-hot (and even molten) IRON IS COMBUSTIBLE matter in ordinary air.
The burning piles of steel and other debris in the piles at WTC1, WTC2, and
WTC7 radiated/convected heat constantly after the collapses. SURFACE temperatures observed from above reached 1020 Kelvin (747 C) (1376.6 F)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html
These temperatures at the surface of the piles indicate that there was an enormous net release of thermal energy from the huge piles (by radiation and convection), and conduction and convection of the heat from the inside the piles to the outside, during the weeks that followed the collapses, which disproves the conjecture that hot metals in the piles were super-insulated
by asbestos or "dust" in the piles. If you are merely starting with a
finite quantity of mythological molten metal (e.g., proportionately small amounts produced by "thermite" that supposedfly destroyed the buildings and then fell down and mixed with the falling debris of the WTC towers and that supposedly cooled enough to heat up tons of red-hot structural steel), you can't Release your Heat and Keep it too. And, you cannot have both "molten"
iron/steel and merely red-hot steel in the same place (e.g., in contact with
each other) for "weeks". You can only have one or the other. The
steady-state nature of the observed release of heat from the piles plus the continuous (steady-state) existence of red-hot rebar and I-beams in the piles weeks after the collapses indicates that it was generated by a continuous process (e.g., iron-oxidation).
The highest well-DOCUMENTED temperature of Steel burning INSIDE the burning piles of debris at Ground Zero were scientifically estimated at being about 1000C (1832 F):
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett,
2001)
"A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity." http://www.wpi edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
At that temperature (1832F) the oxidation of structural steel on a given surface area of steel is significant, and easily accounts for the massive and constant (steady-state) release of heat from the piles and to the mass of "red-hot" structural steel in the piles. At that temperature, there is no way to prevent or arrest the oxidation of the steel burning in the piles.
Even stainless steel would burn/oxidize at that temperature, because the chromium metal in it would burn/oxidize.
The significant resulting loss of mass from burning (oxidizing) structural steel is shown in the photographs: http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns
htm and below.
Structural steel was thinned away (and turn into rust) by oxidation, as illustrated by this photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/fig1.gif
http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2006/06/341368.gif
"A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness.
Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance ...." http://www wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html
The significant mass of Steel MISSING from the obviously Burned/Oxidized Structural steel had to GO somewhere Else. It did not leave the piles attached to the not-melted "red-hot" structural steel that it burned off of.
Some of it probably became the photographed mass of molten BLACK IRON OXIDE SLAG shown in the photograph(s) produced by Professor Jones, and sampled by him. Incidentally, flowing molten iron metal would probably not form/solidify on the "side" of a WTC basement wall. Molten iron/steel would fall off the wall. Molten Oxide Slags are stickier and more viscous than molten metals, and would form on the sides of walls as they cooled, forming slag stalactites.
Professor Jones admits that there were "huge quantities" of iron "RUST" in the piles (he says this rust was also found among the alleged "previously molten metal"), which is totally inconsistent with the idea that "thermite"
was actually USED in the WTC towers, but is completely consistent with the idea that huge quantities of iron/steel in the piles OXIDIZED in the piles, thus forming the RUST (and allegedly forming "molten iron"):
Professor Jones additionally obtained samples of a black substance that apparently was formerly "molten" within the piles and which Jones admits is predominately IRON", and which appears to be solidified BLACK IRON OXIDE SLAG, not pure unoxidized IRON METAL. Slags are characterized by "Ropy textures on the surface" as appear on the samples shown by Professor Jones.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PETROLGY/Leaverite0.HTM
"Black Iron Oxide" (Fe3O4), is formed by the oxidation of Iron or steel, and melts (flows as a liquid) at 1538C Degrees. http://www.micronmetals
com/iron_oxide_black.htm An Iron Oxide's "Color tone depends on the
temperature ... when manufactured." http://www.chemistryquestion com/English/Questions/ChemistryInDailyLife/16c_iron_oxides_cosmetics.html
"Bubbles", such as are clearly present in Professor Jones' (iron oxide
slag?) samples, are often formed in the molten "iron oxide slag" that forms from "burning iron" .
http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/JOURNALS/JAI/PAGES/JAI12227
htm?E+mystore
There is abundant physical evidence of red-hot (burning) structural steel, and some evidence of previously "molten" metal-oxide slags; but no substantial "proof" of any unoxidized "molten" (liquid) iron metal in the WTC debris piles has ever been produced by 9-11 conspiracy theorists.
There is no "molten metal proof".
]----- Original Message -----
From: KenJenkins@aol.com
To: mferran@nycap.rr.com
Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 6:16 AM
Subject: Re: Eastman reply to Mark Ferran on the molten metal proof
In a message dated 9/8/06 11:19:00 AM, olfriend@nwinfo.net writes:
What we do know is that the molten mass was there, that there is no other explanation for its molten state so long after the attack other than the emission of latent heat from phase transition -- perhaps also the surface to volumn ratio and the insulation properties of the containing material around it.
My emphasis added. Thanks Dick for suporting the insulation factor (I hadn t yet read this when I posted my prior comments). Lots of asbestos and dust makes for a lot of insulation to help account for the long time it took for the molten steel to cool.
Ken
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.4/449 - Release Date: 9/15/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Exposing the hidden hand of Israel"
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
WHY was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
http://www.investigate911.com/ground_zero_fires.htm
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers
collapsed:
Only Thermite/Themate would cause the Ground Zero fires to burn for three months after 9/11/01.
Thermite is used to demolish buildings. Even heavy rains and snow were unable to extinguish those fires.
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
http://www.courttv.com/assault_on_america/0914_rain_ap.html
and rained heavily again on September 21, 2001,
http://www.wnbc.com/news/962722/detail.html
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardants,
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1634
and "firetrucks sprayed a nearly constant jet of water on "Ground Zero."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/...ain321907.shtml
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/s...r2002/k911.html
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.
http://www.jhsph.edu/Publications/Special/Welch.htm
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/lib...-11_commission/
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.htm...DA80994D9404482
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
http://www.answers.com/evaporation&r=67
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/77nwash.htm
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole."
(pages 31-32)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002E5QK...glance&n=283155
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
http://web.archive.org/web/20030422113455/...002-NewYork.pdf
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
http://www.thenewliberator.com/wethepeople.htm
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...112/ai_n9015802
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nydailynews/87...LDER+FOR+MONTHS
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/sh...p=2948#post2948
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
"Exposing the hidden hand of Israel"
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
9-11-01_the_Zionist_Connection-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Subject: Underwriter's Laboratory Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 Degrees F
Underwriter's Laboratory Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 Degrees F
Underwriter's Laboratory Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
http://www.911Truth.org11-14-4
"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." From Kevin R. Ryan Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana (Company site - www.ehl.cc) A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Company site - www.ul.com)
To Frank Gayle Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division Material Science and Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle
From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: frank.gayle@nist.gov Date: 11/11/2004
Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally, this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1.
http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories [Note: The letter is followed in the e-mail by a standard UL message footer] -- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca, or contact your local sales representative. November 12: An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. Ryan sent his letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He later forwarded it in an e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin asked for and received permission to forward the letter for Web distribution. 911Truth.org called Ryan today to confirm his authorship. The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling). A chemist by profession, Ryan said he is acting in the hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapse is due in January. The New York Times reports today that the NIST team is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times writes. As the Times notes, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11. Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com) http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 - 911Truth.org (nl) Comment From Scott T Davis 11-14-4 Dear Jeff, I want to ask all Americans - who have just read this article which has such overwhelming statistical information exposing the World Trade Center cover-up - to take just a minute and e-mail the article to their Senators, Congressional Representatives and all media outlets. All the e-mail information we need to expose the coverup is right on the main page of your web site. We as Americans are held accountable for our actions by government everyday. It's well past time we hold the people we employ to represent us equally as accountable. Scott T Davis http://www.investigate911.com/wtcsteel.htm Jon Moseley(703) 850-3733Fax: (703) 783-0449ENJOY COLD PEACE -- A Modern Spy Novel http://www.ColdPeace.comAvailable on AMAZON.Com --http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970444729//ref=nosim/102-4962634-7308958 HERE WE SEE THE UTTER FRAUD of the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement. Over and over again, it has been made clear that NOBODY GIVES A DAMN when steel "MELTS." The issue is when steel FAILS. Steel loses 80% of its structural strength between 1000 degrees F and 1400 degrees F. And, simultaneously, steel EXPANDS so that rigid structures become twisted, deformed, buckle, lose their structural integrity and indeed SNAP. Just as a bottle of liquid in the freezer will BUST open when the freezing ice expands, a rigid steel structure will SHATTER when the steel EXPANDS BEYOND the capacity of the rigid structure to bend. (In my case, it was three cans of soda left in my car in a Winter storm, which froze, broke open, and then sprayed all over the car, I gather when they started to melt again.) EVERYONE NOW KNOWS that we don't give a damn when steel melts. The question is at what temperature does steel lose enough strength to BUCKLE -- WITHOUT melting -- and at what temperature does it expand enough to DEFORM the building strucutre to the point of collapse. FURTHERMORE, everyone knows that you have to factor in the MISSING PIECES of the World Trade Center towers that were torn out of the structure by the aircraft impact and the 30 tons of jet fuel going off as a bomb in the interiror of the building. Jon Moseley
-----Original Message----- From: Corvuswire Sent: Sep 4, 2006 9:15 PM To: James Morris , Institute for Policy Research & Development , Jon Moseley , Milo , "Edgar J. Steele" , Dan Law , Dick Eastman , Foppe Dykstra , George Galloway , James Fetzer , BlKnight18@aol.com, Jacob Roginsky , LibertarianHope@aol.com, Kent <911cd@cox.net> Subject: Underwriter's Laboratory Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 Degrees F Underwriter's Laboratory Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 Degrees F Underwriter's Laboratory Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study http://www.911Truth.org11-14-4 "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." From Kevin R. Ryan Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana (Company site - www.ehl.cc) A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Company site - www.ul.com) To Frank Gayle Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division Material Science and Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI To: frank.gayle@nist.gov Date: 11/11/2004 Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally, this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories [Note: The letter is followed in the e-mail by a standard UL message footer] -- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca, or contact your local sales representative. November 12: An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. Ryan sent his letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He later forwarded it in an e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin asked for and received permission to forward the letter for Web distribution. 911Truth.org called Ryan today to confirm his authorship. The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling). A chemist by profession, Ryan said he is acting in the hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapse is due in January. The New York Times reports today that the NIST team is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times writes. As the Times notes, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11. Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com) http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 - 911Truth.org (nl) Comment From Scott T Davis 11-14-4 Dear Jeff, I want to ask all Americans - who have just read this article which has such overwhelming statistical information exposing the World Trade Center cover-up - to take just a minute and e-mail the article to their Senators, Congressional Representatives and all media outlets. All the e-mail information we need to expose the coverup is right on the main page of your web site. We as Americans are held accountable for our actions by government everyday. It's well past time we hold the people we employ to represent us equally as accountable. Scott T Davis http://www.investigate911.com/wtcsteel.htm Jon Moseley(703) 850-3733Fax: (703) 783-0449ENJOY COLD PEACE -- A Modern Spy Novel http://www.ColdPeace.comAvailable on AMAZON.Com --http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970444729//ref=nosim/102-4962634-7308958
Quoting Jon Moseley :
HERE WE SEE THE UTTER FRAUD of the 9/11 Conspiracy Movement. Over and over again, it has been made clear that NOBODY GIVES A DAMN when steel "MELTS." The issue is when steel FAILS. Steel loses 80% of its structural strength between 1000 degrees F and 1400 degrees F. And, simultaneously, steel EXPANDS so that rigid structures become twisted, deformed, buckle, lose their structural integrity and indeed SNAP. Just as a bottle of liquid in the freezer will BUST open when the freezing ice expands, a rigid steel structure will SHATTER when the steel EXPANDS BEYOND the capacity of the rigid structure to bend. (In my case, it
was three cans of soda left in my car in a Winter storm, which froze, broke open, and then sprayed all over the car, I gather when they started to melt again.) EVERYONE NOW KNOWS that we don't give a damn when steel melts. The question is at what temperature does steel lose enough strength to BUCKLE -- WITHOUT melting -- and at what temperature does it expand enough to DEFORM the building strucutre to the point of collapse. FURTHERMORE, everyone knows that you have to factor in the MISSING PIECES of the World Trade Center towers that were torn out of the structure by the aircraft impact and the 30 tons of jet fuel going off as a bomb in the interiror of the building. Jon Moseley -----Original Message----- From: Corvuswire Sent: Sep 4, 2006 9:15 PM To: James Morris , Institute for Policy Research & Development , Jon Moseley , Milo , "Edgar J. Steele" , Dan Law , Dick Eastman , Foppe Dykstra , George Galloway , James Fetzer , BlKnight18@aol.com, Jacob Roginsky , LibertarianHope@aol.com, Kent <911cd@cox.net> Subject: Underwriter's Laboratory Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 Degrees F v\:* {behavior:url (#default#vml);}v\:* { BEHAVIOR: url (#default#vml)} Underwriter's Laboratory Says NO WAY WTC Steel Could Melt At 2000 Degrees F Underwriter's Laboratory Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study http://www.911Truth.org11-14-4 "The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." From Kevin R. Ryan Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories South Bend, Indiana (Company site - www.ehl.cc) A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (Company site - www.ul.com) To Frank Gayle Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division Material Science and Engineering Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology NIST and the World Trade Center at wtc.nist.gov Dr. Gayle biography wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI To: frank.gayle@nist.gov Date: 11/11/2004 Dr. Gayle, Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly. As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the
essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel ? burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings
from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory." We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very
straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally, this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse. This story just does not add up. If steel from those
buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company. There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter". Thanks for your efforts to determine
what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel. 1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf Kevin Ryan Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories [Note: The letter is followed in the e-mail by a standard UL message footer] -- For more information about UL, its Marks, and its services for EMC, quality registrations and product certifications for global markets, please access our web sites at http://www.ul.com and http://www.ulc.ca, or contact your local sales representative. November
12: An executive of the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused its collapse, in a letter yesterday to the head of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell. The author of the letter, Kevin Ryan, is site manager at Environmental Health Laboratories in South Bend, Indiana, a division of Underwriters Laboratories, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, its performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. Ryan sent his letter to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He later forwarded it in an e-mail to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board.
Griffin asked for and received permission to forward the letter for Web distribution. 911Truth.org called Ryan today to confirm his authorship. The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the steel in the towers tested up to its certified standard (i.e., it should have easily withstood the fuel fires without buckling). A chemist by profession, Ryan said he is acting in the hope of receiving a public response from Gayle. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said, everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day. He added that he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapse is due in January. The New York Times reports today that the NIST team is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they
were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times writes. As the Times notes, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11. Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com) http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451 - 911Truth.org (nl) Comment From Scott T Davis 11-14-4
Dear Jeff, I want to ask all Americans - who have just read this article which has such overwhelming statistical information exposing the World Trade Center cover-up - to take just a minute and e-mail the article to their Senators, Congressional Representatives and all media outlets. All the e-mail information we need to expose the coverup is right on the main page of your web site. We as Americans are held accountable for our actions by government everyday. It's well past time we hold the people we employ to represent us equally as accountable. Scott T Davis http://www.investigate911.com/wtcsteel.htm
The 707-WTC Impact Study, Molten Metal Info and More
Profile: Leslie Robertson
Positions that Leslie Robertson has held:
Leslie Robertson actively participated in the following events:
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985): Office of Special Planning Studies Vulnerability of WTC to Terrorist Attack
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-3087
Excellent links in this information
The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds "one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site." In particular, "There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage." However, O’Sullivan consults "one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane." He is told there is "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked." [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called "Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center" late in 1985 (see November 1985).
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985): Office of Special Planning Studies Vulnerability of WTC to Terrorist Attack
The Office of Special Planning (OSP), a unit set up by the New York Port Authority to assess the security of its facilities against terrorist attacks (see Early 1984), spends four to six months studying the World Trade Center. It examines the center’s design through looking at photographs, blueprints, and plans. It brings in experts such as the builders of the center, plus experts in sabotage and explosives, and has them walk through the WTC to identify any areas of vulnerability. According to New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton, when Edward O’Sullivan, head of the OSP, looks at WTC security, he finds "one vulnerability after another. Explosive charges could be placed at key locations in the power system. Chemical or biological agents could be dropped into the coolant system. The Hudson River water intake could be blown up. Someone might even try to infiltrate the large and vulnerable subterranean realms of the World Trade Center site." In particular, "There was no control at all over access to the underground, two-thousand-car parking garage." However, O’Sullivan consults "one of the trade center’s original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane." He is told there is "little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked." [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 227; New York County Supreme Court, 1/20/2004] The OSP will issue its report called "Counter-Terrorism Perspectives: The World Trade Center" late in 1985 (see November 1985).
Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001: WTC Structural Engineer Says Trade Center Designed for 707 Crashing Into It
Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it," though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17] The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139] A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993). In 2002, though, Robertson will write, "To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance." [Robertson, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [Scientific American, 10/9/2001; New Yorker, 11/19/2001]
September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero
In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center: Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, later will tell the 9/11 Commission, "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, describes, "in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." [Langewiesche, 2002, pp. 32]
[9/11 Commission, 4/1/2003] Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [
] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying, "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt." [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of "hot spots" (some over 1300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).
Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." [Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazi
Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminds him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recall "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." [New York Post, 3/3/2004]
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." [Knight Ridder, 5/29/2002] Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, later will claim this molten metal is "direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite," used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have "insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal." [Deseret Morning News,
There is no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002; 9/11 Commission, But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steel forensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, is quoted as saying, "Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt." [ABC News 7 (New York), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of "hot spots" (some over 1300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-3087
Aron Russo's "America from Freedom to Fascism" is now available on bittorrent: "The Movie That Will Cause the Declaration of World-Wide Martial Law". One way or the other, the movie of Your Life. http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3519240
Dei Jurum Conventus
Ed Ward, MD; http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/arc_ward.htm
Independent writer/Media Liaison for The Price of Liberty; http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767, SO WHY DIDN'T IT?
by MAD MAX Saturday, Jul. 19, 2003 at 11:37 AM Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257_comment.php
In the early 1970's the World Trade Center's chief structural engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a Boeing 707 with the World Trade Center towers. His results were reported in the New York Times where it was claimed that Robertson's study proved the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles an hour. Little did he know that decades later two aircraft, almost identical to the Boeing 707, would impact the towers.
Other engineers are on public record as saying that the World Trade Center would even survive an impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
However, the actual aircraft involved in the World Trade Center impacts were only flying from Boston to Los Angeles, and consequently, would have been nowhere near fully fueled on takeoff (the Boeing 767 has a maximum range of 7,600 miles (12,220 km)). The aircraft would have carried just enough fuel for the trip together with some safety factor. Remember, that carrying excess fuel means higher fuel bills and less paying passengers. The aircraft would have also burnt some fuel between Boston and New York.
Government sources estimate that each of the Boeing 767's had approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on board at the times of impact.
To give you some idea how much jet fuel this is, an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot tank contains 10,000 gallons (1 US gallon = 0.13368 cubic feet). So a novel way of destroying high-rise buildings is to load an 11 foot by 11 foot by 11 foot glass tank of jet fuel into a Ryder truck, drive it into the ground floor lobby, break the glass, set light to the fuel and walk away, the high-rise should collapse in about an hour (after all, 12,000 gallons of diesel was all it took to bring down WTC 7). Look mom, no explosives needed.
Since, the Boeing 767 is much more fuel-efficient than the 707, a Boeing 707 traveling the same route would carry significantly more fuel and would therefore be a much greater danger from the perspective of a jet fuel fire.
Thus the quantity of fuel that burnt on September 11 would have been envisaged by those who designed the towers. In fact, the towers were designed to survive much more serious fires than those of September 11. Over the years, a number of other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires, but none have collapsed (not one). Before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire. However, on September 11, it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire.
See this article for proof that the jet fuel fires can be ruled out as the cause of the World Trade Center collapses.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s, The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and more fuel-efficient, and the 707 is faster.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling faster on take-off and on landing.
And, since the Boeing 707 would have started from a faster cruise speed, it would be traveling faster in a dive. So in all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing 707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
To illustrate this point we calculate the energy that the planes would impart to the towers in any accidental collision at their cruise speed.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)2/32.174 = 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is = 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)2/32.174 = 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see that at cruise speed, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
So what can be said about the actual impacts?
The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 has been estimated to be 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 has been estimated to be 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)2/32.174 = 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)2/32.174 = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.
Note that the speed of a projectile determines whether the impact damage is localized or spread across a large area. The faster the projectile, the more localized the damage. Common examples illustrating this effect are, the driving of a nail through a piece of wood, and the firing a bullet through a fencepost. Both are done at speed and thus do only local damage. In both of these examples, the wood just a centimeter or two from the impact point, is essentially undamaged. Similarly, the aircraft impacts were at great speed and the damage localized. This effect is
illustrated in the above graphic from the simulation of the crash of a Boeing 747 (maximum takeoff weight 875,000 lb, unloaded weight 670,200 lb, fuel capacity 57,285 gallons) with a steel framed building.
We are told that the "hijackers" wanted to cause maximum death and destruction, then why didn't they hijack Boeing 747s? Boeing 747s weigh more than twice as much, they can carry more than twice the fuel and travel faster than the Boeing 767. Consequently, Boeing 747s would have caused much more death and destruction than the 767s.
Also, why did the hijackers choose to hijack aircraft leaving Boston, when they could have just as easily hijacked aircraft from one of the New York city airports (LaGuardia, Newark or JFK). Hijacking aircraft from Boston, meant that they had to deviate from their designated routes, while still a long way from Manhattan. Of course, as is usual, all sorts of alarm bells would be set off as soon as the aircraft deviated substantially from their prescribed routes. Not only that, the US Air Force specialist quick response unit, the Air National Guard, would almost certainly intercept them before they reached their target (and would have assuredly shoot down the second 767, after seeing what happened to the first).
It is often claimed that the WTC was designed only to withstand the collision of a Boeing 707 that was seeking to land at one of the nearby airports, and that since such aircraft would be low on fuel, only small jet fuel fires were envisaged. However, this is an obvious lie. Why is it an obvious lie? Well, because if you take into consideration planes that are landing at an airport, then you must consider planes that are taking off, and such planes are potentially fully laden with fuel.
Since the WTC towers were designed to handle extreme wind loading (140 mph hurricane force winds) they would survive the impact of a Boeing 707 (even one that was traveling at full speed) without adding any extra features to the design (above those already necessary to handle the wind loading). All that the designers would have to consider, is effect of a jet fuel fire from a fully fueled jet that crashed into one of the towers shortly after taking off from one of the local airports.
Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the much larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
http://hawaii.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/3257_comment.php
Dei Jurum Conventus
Ed Ward, MD; http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/arc_ward.htm
Independent writer/Media Liaison for The Price of Liberty; http://www.thepriceofl
|