Physics proffessor says thermite cutter charges used on World Trade Center

[Nitro Express]

Professor Says ‘Cutter Charges’ Brought Down WTC Buildings

Evidence of Thermite Uncovered at World Trade Center

rss202

By Christopher Bollyn

PROVO, Utah—“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act,” said the British writer George Orwell. Orwell’s words aptly describe the situation of Steven E.

Jones, a soft-spoken professor at Brigham Young University (BYU) who has turned his attention to the unanswered questions of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Provo, the home of BYU, is America’s most conservative city in the most Republican county. With more than 85 percent of the population supporting President George W.

Bush, Provo seems an unlikely place for any “revolutionary act”—unless that act were simply telling the truth.

On the picturesque campus of the private Mormon university, surrounded by snow-capped peaks, Jones teaches physics and carries out research in the fields of metal-catalyzed fusion, solar energy and archeometry, or the scientific study and analysis of artifacts.

As an archeometrist, Jones applies physics to explain events in the past. Since last year when he became aware of the unanswered questions of 9-11, he has focused his attention on the available data and evidence.

The unexplained presence of molten metal at the World Trade Center (WTC) puzzled Jones and he contacted this writer to confirm the reports first published in American Free Press in 2002. These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.

Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten
steel” in the rubble.

Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”

The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7, which mysteriously collapsed in the late afternoon.

SERIOUS INVESTIGATION

Last November, Jones presented a draft which has since evolved into a 52-page paper. His paper begins with an appeal for “a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down . . .through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.”

Jones presents evidence that an “aluminothermic process” called “thermite” was used to weaken and sever the 47 massive core columns that held up the towers. The official version fails to explain how these critical columns failed. When ignited, thermite, a combination of finely ground aluminum and iron oxide (rust), cuts through steel like a “warm knife through butter,” Jones said, especially when mixed with 2 percent sulfur. The resulting combination, called “thermate,” lowers the melting point of steel.

Thermite was patented in Germany by Hans Goldschmidt in the late 1800s. Extremely high temperatures are produced when the aluminum and iron oxide react. The reaction produces temperatures of more than 2,500 degrees Celsius (4,500 degrees Fahrenheit) as the ferric oxide is reduced to molten iron. Iron melts at 1,535 degrees Celsius. The reaction causes the oxygen from the ferric oxide to bond with the aluminum, producing aluminum oxide, molten iron, and approximately 750 kilocalories per gram of thermite. The aluminum oxide is a whitish smoke.

AFP recently attended a presentation of Jones’s 9-11 research at BYU. Jones began with footage of the unexplained collapse of Larry Silverstein’s 47-story building, WTC 7, at 5:25 p.m.

When Jones was interviewed by Tucker Carlson of MSNBC, the producers refused to air this short but crucial video segment.

AFP observed thermite reactions in Jones’s physics class. As a colleague combined the powdered rust and aluminum in a mounted ceramic flowerpot, Jones filmed the reaction. A paper wick with magnesium ignited the sand-like mixture.

The reaction was intense, nearly explosive, and white flames and pieces of metal flew out of the pot. From the bottom poured a white-hot liquid—pure molten iron. After a few seconds a glowing yellow-hot piece of iron was lifted with tongs and shown to the students.

Because thermite does not require air and can react underwater, it may explain the persistent hot spots that were unaffected by a continuous dousing from fire hoses. The white-hot molten iron and slag can itself prolong and extend the heating and incendiary action.

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running,” Leslie Robertson, structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, told fellow engineers.

Footage taken by WABC-TV of the burning South Tower at 9:53 a.m., immediately before the building collapsed, reveals large amounts of white-hot molten metal, presumably iron, pouring from the 81st floor of the east corner.

The amount of spilling molten metal suggests a pool of molten iron was in that area of the building. While some have suggested that the molten metal was aluminum, this is easily disproved by the fact that molten aluminum appears silver-gray in daylight. The only possible explanation is that the white-hot metal gushing from the South Tower was molten iron and had been produced by a very large amount of thermite.

The amount of molten metal seen falling would indicate that tons of thermite had been used on that floor. From the video footage it appears that several cubic yards of molten metal fell, which, if iron, would have weighed over eight tons.

Jones’s explosive paper is accessible on his web page (physics.byu.edu) and will be published in a forthcoming book by David Ray Griffin and Peter
Dale Scott. Reading Jones’ paper on-line allows the reader to review the photographic/video evidence.

“I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports,” Jones writes, which claim “that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings.”

He challenges the official explanation and provides evidence to support the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which, he says “is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable.”

Jones notes that the hypothesis that the towers were demolished by explosives “has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the U.S. government.”

Ignoring the evidence of the controlled-demolition hypothesis, the FEMA-sponsored study of 2002 concluded, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown.”

Furthermore, the official report found that the fire-induced collapse hypothesis “has only a low probability of occurrence.”

The engineers concluded that “further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.”

“That is precisely the point,” Jones says, “further investigation and analyses are indeed needed, including serious consideration of the controlled-demolition hypothesis which is neglected in all of the government reports.”

The fact that the 9-11 Commission report does not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 “is a striking omission of data highly relevant to the question of what really happened on 9-11,” he said.

FURTHER INVESTIGATION

Further investigation is what Jones is trying to get other scientists to do. One would think that the mainstream media would be interested in a highly respected physicist answering questions about 9-11, but that has not been the case. The controlled media and supporters of the official version completely avoid Jones.

Like a modern-day Galileo or Luther, Jones has exposed the flaws in the official version, “a myth,” he says, “which has taken on religious proportions.

“There is a clear disconnect between what the official reports say happened and what actually happened,” Jones says. “A scientific theory has to be falsifiable. It must be able to be tested and challenged.

“The data stands on its own. Where are the honest scientists?” Jones asks. “Take the blinders off and find out what happened.”

The official 9-11 reports are what Jones calls “pathological science,” in which investigators ignore all evidence that contradicts the conclusion they have been asked to prove.

AFP contacted three scientists who support the official theory to ask if they would review Jones’s paper.

Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at the paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC. Challenged with the
evidence, he hung up the phone.

Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University submitted his fire-induced collapse theory to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) two days after 9-11, without examining any evidence. Asked if he would review Jones’s paper, Bazant also refused, “I have seen Jones’s fiction before. If you want my private opinion, it is nothing but sensationalism,” he said. “His purported refutation of my analysis is baseless.”

Asked to simply look at five photos in an e-mail showing the cascading molten metal and core columns, which appear to have been cut with thermite, Bazant responded, “I do not have time.”

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, an Iranian-born professor at Berkeley, who was a member of the ASCE team studying the WTC collapse, also refused to look at Jones’s paper.

“I will not be able to find time to review the material that you have sent me,” said Astaneh-Asl.

[binnie]

Shit just hit the fan with this one

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Nitro Express

archeometry...the scientific study and analysis of artifacts.

http://i.imdb.com/Photos/Ss/0097576/th-IJ3_IA_4_R.jpg

"You call this archeometry?!"

[ELVIS]

Blowing up an entire floor would have been caught on video...

[binnie]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Blowing up an entire floor would have been caught on video...

that's a good point

[ELVIS]

Isn't it amazing how such a brilliant scientist fails to address such a thing ??

[Guitar Shark]

I am pretty sure this story has been posted here and shot down months ago.

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Blowing up an entire floor would have been caught on video...

It was.

Much of the live footage filmed on the scene showed puffs of smoke and dust, and even flashes of light coming from the lower floors of the towers, nowhere near the impact zone of the airplanes.

And several eyewitnesses on the scene reported seeing and hearing these explosions, including FDNY firefighters who barely made it out of the towers alive.

[ELVIS]

That's all bullshit you just made up...

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
It was.

Much of the live footage filmed on the scene showed puffs of smoke and dust, and even flashes of light coming from the lower floors of the towers, nowhere near the impact zone of the airplanes.

And several eyewitnesses on the scene reported seeing and hearing these explosions, including FDNY firefighters who barely made it out of the towers alive.

Sources, please.

Here is a good link to a variety of different videos from that day.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/multimedia.day.html

[Nitro Express]

Thermite does not explode. It burns very hot and burns through metal like a blowtorch. The thermite would not blow up parts of the building like a bomb but it would cut through the steel.

That is why thermite grenades were used by the Rangers on D-Day to sabotage German artillary pieces. Thermite does not explode and make noise. The Rangers took out sevral artillary pieces with thermite will a large number of German soldiers in the area.

[Nitro Express]

The thing is people are starting to talk and mutual exclusive sources are saying "Wait a minute, things don't add up here". The evidence is comming forth, now people just need the common sense to put it together.

Demolition charges were indeed used at the World Trade Center.

Hell, Al Quaida opperatives could have placed them in the buildings themselves. We don't know who put the charges in the buildings but it' becoming clear those buildings fell because cutting charges went off on the main support columns.

[Nitro Express]

Why would there be molten steel in the bottom of all fallen buildings? Why did one building fail that wasn't hit by an airplane nor did it have any substantial fires in it?

[knuckleboner]

somewhere, the same gravity that brought down the WTC is causing newton to spin in his grave.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Sources, please.


Still waiting... ;)

[DLR'sCock]

Not that anyone will give a rats ass, but from the 911 Loose Change video there is video footage of FDNY firefighters saying there were explosions going off in the WTC.

I have spoken with quite a few firefighters and apparently there is underground coversation and questioning about what happened at the WTC and Pentagon.

Hey they are firefighters, you can ask them, but more than one has said this to me.

I never brought up the topic either, nor did I go into it, I only listened.


Who knows.

[FORD]

Reportedly the FDNY is still under a gag order not to talk about anything they saw or heard at the WTC that day.

[Seshmeister]

Reported at conspiracy nuts weekly?:)

Why not just use thermite bombs to bring the towers down and have Al Queda claim responsibility?

No risky nonsense with planes and boxcutters required and the exact same result.

If there wasn't tons of video showing the fucking planes slamming into the towers the exact same people would be screaming that there were no planes just like they do with the Pentagon.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Reported at conspiracy nuts weekly?:)

Why not just use thermite bombs to bring the towers down and have Al Queda claim responsibility?

No risky nonsense with planes and boxcutters required and the exact same result.

If there wasn't tons of video showing the fucking planes slamming into the towers the exact same people would be screaming that there were no planes just like they do with the Pentagon.

Because the second plane crash was the visual showpiece of the entire operation. Whomever staged the attacks allowed just enough time for all the media whores to get their cameras in place so they could not only catch the second crash live, but to do so from every imaginable angle.

Blowing up the building would have been tragic, but it had been done before, in Oklahoma. Hell, it had even been done at the WTC before, though not as successfully. The visual spectacle of the plane crash added a whole new level of psychological impact. And that's true no matter who you believe to be responsible.

[Seshmeister]

FORD it's a cool story don't get me wrong but's all nonsense.

It's Tom Clancy not the real world.

Look at all the terrible fuckups the US government has been involved in when they had their best operatives and it was fairly simple stuff like the Tehran hostage rescue or Blackhawk down compared to trying to use Arab suicide bombers combined with demolition experts who are happy to kill thousands.

You give these politicians/military industrial complex people far too much credit. First up they are not that great, second they are cowardly and wouldn't take such a big risk, and finally trying to keep something that big quiet would be impossible.

On a related note, I was at Dublin airport the other day and going through security the American in front of me took off his shoes and put them through the machine. I thought what the fuck is this idiot doing?

I ended up sitting beside some guy from SF on the flight and he told me your airports are now doing this?

What a stupid pointless piece of fucking nonsense.

Because of that one nutcase shoebomber joker?

It's all a piece of crap. You can still take 5 or 6 cigarrete lighters on a flight. More importantly you can still buy glass bottle in duty free, smash the necks off them in the restroom of the plane and then shove the broken neck into an air hostesses throat with the same outcome as 9-11. Why?

Because duty free makes money.

Not to mention the fact that the airport ground crew who have access to all the planes and can do whatever the fuck they want to them before takeoff are all paid the same amount as McDonalds staff with the same amount of 'vetting'.

The whole thing is a joke.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[jhale667]

Originally posted by FORD
It was.

Much of the live footage filmed on the scene showed puffs of smoke and dust, and even flashes of light coming from the lower floors of the towers, nowhere near the impact zone of the airplanes.

And several eyewitnesses on the scene reported seeing and hearing these explosions, including FDNY firefighters who barely made it out of the towers alive.

I've SEEN that footage...more places than 'Loose Change', too...like CNN...it's VISIBLE. You can see what look like precursory 'explosions'-small though they may be - on the floors BELOW as the towers collapse. Watch carefully if you do care to find the footage.


Originally posted by DLR'sCock
Not that anyone will give a rats ass, but from the 911 Loose Change video there is video footage of FDNY firefighters saying there were explosions going off in the WTC.

I have spoken with quite a few firefighters and apparently there is underground coversation and questioning about what happened at the WTC and Pentagon.

Hey they are firefighters, you can ask them, but more than one has said this to me.

I never brought up the topic either, nor did I go into it, I only listened.


Who knows.

Exactly. But there are MORE than a few credible people questioning the official 'explanation' (never mind that every structural engineer on the PLANET surveyed says it's NOT POSSIBLE, even with all the jet fuel burning for temperatures to have reached sufficient levels to melt steel. And how NO building of that design has EVER collapsed due to fire in HISTORY, also remember #7 or whatever WAS NOT HIT and collapsed), so what I don't understand is the tendency of some to AUTOMATICALLY dismiss any attempt at a rational discussion of the official story...it requires a suspension of disbelief of almost BIBLICAL proportions, if you think about it! But question it and you get the knee-jerk "Why do you hate America?" shit... it's weird. :rolleyes:

[Seshmeister]

First up I've seen half a dozen TV programs where independant structural engineers have explained exactly how and why it happened.

Secondly the temperature thing about steel is silly because it looses half it's strength at half the temperature it takes to melt it.

Thirdly one of the programs I saw was with the architect and he wasn't shouting foul he was just really depressed.

Fourthly the argument that a building has never failed through fire is totally redundant because how many modern bulidings that are over a hundred stories have ever been hit by aircraft?

None.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[FORD]

The "structural engineers" who buy the BCE theory are like the "environmental scientists" bankrolled by EXXON who deny global warming, or the "doctors" on the Phillip Morris payroll who swear to this day that cigarettes are harmless.

The Popular Mechanics article that Busheep like to cite as "evidence" of how the tower frames were allegedly compromised by jet fuel was written by Michael Chertoff's nephew.

Instead of these so called experts, look at the buildings that have burned with much hotter fires for much longer periods of time, yet remain structurally intact.

The jet fuel in the first crash burned for a half hour if that. The fuel in the second tower burned even faster, because the plane struck the building right at the corner and half the fireball went out the side of the building. There was NEVER anywhere near enough heat in that fire to compromise a steel frame even on that floor, let alone 80 stories below. Yet molten metal WAS found in the basement of the building several days after the attacks. Jet fuel could not have produced that molten metal. Thermite explosives very well could have.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
There was NEVER anywhere near enough heat in that fire to compromise a steel frame even on that floor, let alone 80 stories below.

How the hell can you discern that ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
How the hell can you discern that ??

Simple physics........


Jet Fuel burns at 800 - 1500 degrees Fahrenheit, the higher temperatures would be in a high oxygen environment, which would make it burn hotter AND faster. Such was the case with the fireballs at the WTC, which took the oxygen out of the open air to fuel the fire.

Steel doesn't melt until 2700 degrees. So even the fireballs couldn't do it, let alone the short fires inside the buildings.

Thermite explosives burn at 3000 degrees Fahrenheit.

So, strategically placed, it would burn through the steelat certain points up and down the building, cutting them loose from the frame, and then gravity does the rest, just as it did with the Trojan nuke plant, the Kingdome, or any other controlled demolition.

[Nitro Express]

Thermite usually isn't used in normal demolitions. They use shaped explosive charges, detonation cord, and usually commercial blasting power.

Thermite is hot as hell and has a nasty issue of staying hot even when doused by water. In normal demolition, time is money. You want to get the building knocked down and hauled away ASAP. Thermite and it's lingering high heat make this impossible.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Thermite usually isn't used in normal demolitions. They use shaped explosive charges, detonation cord, and usually commercial blasting power.

Thermite is hot as hell and has a nasty issue of staying hot even when doused by water. In normal demolition, time is money. You want to get the building knocked down and hauled away ASAP. Thermite and it's lingering high heat make this impossible.

True, but in normal demolitions, you usually aren't planting the explosives in buildings that are still occupied.

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
how many modern bulidings that are over a hundred stories have ever been hit by aircraft?

None.

Cheers!

:gulp:

two, actually.



Cheers!

:gulp:

[ashstralia]

ok, how's about this?

aluminium plane parts at 500 mph + rusty steel beams + combusting jet fuel = thermite?

[jcook11]

Or this....Lee Harvey Oswald and Elvis are really not dead they were hired by the BCE to act as snipers and each at a precise moment shoot a jet out of the sky then run down and plant the thermite..Hmmmmmmm.

[Dan]

Originally posted by ashstralia
ok, how's about this?

aluminium plane parts at 500 mph + rusty steel beams + combusting jet fuel = thermite?

Sounds right to me.

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by ashstralia
two, actually.



Cheers!

:gulp:

Which ones?

[frets5150]

Here

[frets5150]

More

[ashstralia]

hey frets...

was all them purdy picshures on ebaums?
:)




* edit, spaillen*

[frets5150]

Again

[frets5150]

And again

[frets5150]

Originally posted by ashstralia
hey frets...

was all them purdy picshures on ebaums?
:)




* edit, spaillen*

Wow just this one Brilliant response thats it?






:rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by frets5150
And again

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ayt-Pj067z4"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ayt-Pj067z4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


:elvis:

[ELVIS]

And those are NOT detonations...

About 1:14 into this video you can see the same thing...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQoy3obur4Q"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQoy3obur4Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

The tower was well on it's way down FROM THE TOP WHERE THE PLANE HIT...

It's PREPOSTEROUS to think the WTC was taken down with explosives...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS

It's PREPOSTEROUS to think the WTC was taken down with jet fuel which is incapable of melting steel

[frets5150]

Originally posted by ELVIS
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ayt-Pj067z4"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ayt-Pj067z4" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


:elvis:


Ok now that clip disproves the thermite cutter charge Theory..
Thanks for wastin 10 min of my time watchin that Horse Shit
I enjoyed the trip down memory lane now can we get back to the original topic


:rolleyes:

[frets5150]

Originally posted by FORD


Exactly so if Jet Fuel can't melt steel what brought the towers down :rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

LMAO

[frets5150]

Originally posted by ELVIS
And those are NOT detonations...

About 1:14 into this video you can see the same thing...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQoy3obur4Q"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DQoy3obur4Q" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

The tower was well on it's way down FROM THE TOP WHERE THE PLANE HIT...

It's PREPOSTEROUS to think the WTC was taken down with explosives...

A little editing there?:D

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
I'm a dumbass.

I don't think you really believe this cutter charge crap either, but if you think it strengthens your agenda, knock yourself out...


:elvis:

[frets5150]

This is like 30 stories or so above where the Collapse started.You don't find nothing wrong with that

[rustoffa]

HVAC. :rolleyes:

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed
A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

By: Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn ret.

http://vincentdunn.com/

After the 767 jet liner crashed into the world trade center building creating the worst terror attack in history, a fire burned for 56 minutes inside the World Trade Center building number two. The top 20 floors of the building collapsed on the 90 floors below. The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in 8 seconds... After a fire burned inside WTC tower number one for 102 minutes, the top 30 floors collapsed on the lower 80 floors. And the entire one hundred and ten stories of this building collapsed in 10 seconds. You can say the reason they collapsed was they were struck with a 185 ton jet airliner and the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse. Or you can take a closer look at the buildings construction of the WTC buildings. And ask yourself why did these structures collapse so fast and so completely. The answer can be found by examining high-rise construction in New York City over the past 50 years

World Trade Center tower construction

In terms of structural system the twin towers departed completely from other high-rise buildings. Conventional skyscrapers since the 19th century have been built with a skeleton of interior supporting columns that supports the structure. Exterior walls of glass steel or synthetic material do not carry any load. The Twin towers are radically different in structural design as the exterior wall is used as the load-bearing wall. (A load bearing wall supports the weight of the floors.) The only interior columns are located in the core area, which contains the elevators. The outer wall carries the building vertical loads and provides the entire resistance to wind. The wall consists of closely spaced vertical columns (21 columns 10 feet apart) tied together by horizontal spandrel beams that girdle the tower at every floor. On the inside of the structure the floor sections consist of trusses spanning from the core to the outer wall.

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

Steel Framing

The most noticeable change in the modern high-rise construction is a trend to using more steel and shaping lightweight steel into tubes, curves, and angles to increase its load bearing capability. The WTC has tubular steel bearing walls, fluted corrugated steel flooring and bent bar steel truss floor supports. To a modern high rise building designer steel framing is economical and concrete is a costly material. For a high-rise structural frame: columns, girders, floors and walls, steel provides greater strength per pound than concrete. Concrete is heavy. Concrete creates excessive weight in the structure of a building. Architects, designers , and builders all know if you remove concrete from a structure you have a building that weights less. So if you create a lighter building you can use columns, girders and beams of smaller dimensions, or better yet you can use the same size steel framing and build a taller structure. In News York City where space is limited you must build high. The trend over the past half-century is to create lightweight high buildings. To do this you use thin steel bent bar truss construction instead of solid steel beams. To do this you use hollow tube steel bearing walls, and curved sheet steel (corrugated) under floors. To do this you eliminate as much concrete from the structure as you can and replace it with steel. Lightweight construction means economy. It means building more with less. If you reduce the structure’s mass you can build cheaper and builder higher. Unfortunately unprotected steel warps, melts, sags and collapses when heated to normal fire temperatures about 1100 to 1200 degrees

The fire service believes there is a direct relation of fire resistance to mass of structure. The more mass the more fire resistance. The best fire resistive building in America is a concrete structure. The structures that limit and confine fires best, and suffer fewer collapses are reinforced concrete pre WWII buildings such as housing projects and older high rise buildings like the empire state building, The more concrete, the more fire resistance; and the more concrete the less probability of total collapse. The evolution of high- rise construction can be seen, by comparing the empire state building to the WTC. My estimate is the ratio of concrete to steel in the empire state building is 60/40. The ratio of concrete to steel in the WTC is 40/60. The tallest building in the world, the Petronas Towers, in Kula Lumpur, Malaysia, is more like the concrete to steel ratio of the empire state building than concrete to steel ratio of the WTC. Donald Trump in New York City has constructed the tallest reinforced concrete high-rise residence building.

The computer designed high rise building

The computer has allowed engineers to reduce the mass of a structure by its ability to more accurately determine the load bearing capability of structural framework. Years ago before the computer, builders were not sure of a structural elements load bearing capability, so they over built by using a so called “safety factor”. This built in safety factor could result in a structure with twice the required load bearing strength. Because of computer calculation this no longer occurs. The older buildings use to have built in a so called “safety factor” of two-to-one. Not so today, if the building code requires a load bearing factor of 40 pounds per square foot that is exactly what you get. There is no margin for error.
Effects of jet crash and fire on a skeleton steel high rise

A plane that only weighted 10 tons struck the Empire State Building and the high-octane gasoline fire quickly flamed out after 35 minutes. When the firefighters walked up to the 79 floor most of the fire had dissipated. The Empire State Building in my opinion, and most fire chiefs in New York City, is the most fire safe building in America. I believe it would have not collapsed like the WTC towers. I believe the Empire State Building, and for that matter any other skeleton steel building in New York City, would have withstood the impact and fire of the terrorist’s jet plane better than the WTC towers. If the jet liners struck any other skeleton steel high rise, the people on the upper floors and where the jet crashed may not have survived; there might have been local floor and exterior wall collapse. However, I believe a skeleton steel frame high rise would not suffer a cascading total pancake collapse of the lower floors in 8 and 10 seconds. Hopefully some engineer using computer calculations, can reconstruct the effects of a 767 jetliner crashing into another New York City high building. In any other high rise in New York City, I say, the floors below the crash and fire, would not collapse in such a total a cascading pancake cave-in. Most of the occupants and rescuers killed in the WTC tower collapse were on the lower floors.
The Empire State Building

Perhaps builders should take a second look at the Empire State Buildings construction. There might be something to learn when they rebuild on ground zero. The empire state building has exterior Indiana limestone exterior wall, 8 inches thick. The floors are also 8 inches thick consisting of one-inch cement over 7 inches of cinder and concrete. All columns, girders and floor beams are solid steel covered with 1 to 2 inches of brick terracotta and concrete. There is virtually no opening in the floors. And there are no air ducts of a HVAC heating cooling and venting system penetrating fire partitions, floor, and ceilings. Each floor has its own HVAC unit. The elevators and utility shafts are masonry enclosed. And for life safety there is a 4-inch brick enclosed so-called “smoke proof stairway”. This stairway is designed to allow people to leave a floor without smoke following them and filing up the stairway. This is accomplished because this smoke proof stairway has an intermediate vestibule, which contains a vent shaft. Any smoke that seeps out the occupancy is sucked up a vent shaft.

Concrete removal

Since the end of WWII builders designed most of the concrete from the modern high-rise constriction. First concrete they eliminated was the stone exterior wall. They replace them with the “curtain walls of glass, sheet steel, or plastics. This curtain wall acted as a lightweight skin to enclose the structure from the outside elements. Next the 8-inch thick concrete floors went. They were replaced with a combination of 2 or 3 inches of concrete on top of thin corrugated steel sheets. Next the masonry enclosure for stairs and elevators were replaced with several layers of sheet rock. Then the masonry smoke proof tower was eliminated in the 1968 building code. It contained too much concrete weight and took up valuable floor space. Then the solid steel beam was replace by the steel truss. And finally the concrete and brick encasement of steel columns girders and floor supports was eliminated. A lightweight spray-on coating of asbestos or mineral fiber was sprayed over the steel. This coating provided fireproofing. After asbestos was discovered hazardous vermiculite or volcanic rock ash substance was used as a spray-on coating for steel. Outside of the foundation walls and a thin 2 or 3 inches of floors surface, concrete has almost been eliminated from high-rise office building construction. If you look at the WTC rubble at ground zero you see very little concrete and lots of twisted steel.
The performance building code

How did lightweight high-rise construction evolve since WWII? It evolved with the help of the so-called performance code. After WWII the builders complained about building codes. They said they were too restrictive and specified every detail of construction. They called the old building codes “specification codes”. They complained the codes specified the size and type and some times even the make of a product used in construction. They decried the specification code as old fashion. They wanted the building codes changed to what they called “performance codes.” They wanted the building codes to specify the performance requirements only; and, not specify the size and type of building material to use. For example, with fire resistive requirements they wanted the code to state just the hours of fire resistance (one, two, three or four hours) required by law; and not to state the specific type and material used to protect structural steel and enclosures for stairways and elevators shafts. For example, a performance building code states: the steel has to be protected against heat of flames for one, two, three or four hours during a fire. It does not state what to use as a fire resisting material. This performance code signaled the end to concrete encasement fire protection and allowed a spray on fire protection for steel and plasterboard enclosed stairs and elevator shafts. Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety. The asbestos spray on coating of steel trusses used in the WTC towers was considered by Chief of the New York City Fire Department, at the time, John T. O’ Hagan to be inferior to concrete encasement of steel. Writing in his book, High Rise Fire and Life Safety. l976, he listed the following problems of spray-on fire protection of steel:

1. Failure to prepare the steel for spray-on coating adhesion. Rust and dirt allowed spray-on fire retarding coating to scale and fall away from steel during construction

2. Poor or uneven application of the spray-on fire retarding was discovered during post fire investigations

3. Variation of spray-on material during manufacture makes it ineffective

4. Lack of thoroughness in covering the steel during application is a problem

5. Failure to replace spray-on material dislodged by other trades people performing work around the steel during the construction of the building.

The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new1968 performance building code.

Recommendations for constructing the new high rise buildings on ground zero

* The steel columns, girders and floor beams should be encased in masonry or other more effective fire retarding material. Spray-on fire retarding is ineffective. Post fire investigations reveals the spray on fire retardant has scaled off and steel beams and concrete and steel floor slabs crack and allow flame spread.

* Lightweight bar joists should not be used to support floors in high-rise buildings. The National Fire Protection Association has shown unprotected steel bar joist fail after five or ten minutes of fire exposure.

* For life safety in high-rise buildings bring back the smoke proof tower. This allows people to escape fire using smoke free stairways.

* Stairs and elevator shaft ways should be enclosed in masonry to prevent smoke spread.

* Heating ventilation and air condition HVAC systems should be provided by unit system serving only one or two floors. Central air system serving 10 or 20 floors creates shaft ways and duct systems that penetrate fire rated floors walls partitions and ceilings. Smoke spreads throughout ducts of central HVAC systems.

* The high rise building framework should be skeleton steel framing not center core steel column framing. There should be no bearing wall high rise construction. Reduce the size of open floor design.

* Increase the thickness of concrete in floor construction. The two or three inches of concrete over corrugated steel fails during most serious high rise fires and must be replaced.

* Automatic sprinklers should protect all high rise buildings. Firefighters can extinguish approximately 2,500 square foot of fire with one hose line. Two hose steams may quench 5,000 square feet of fire. The World Trade Center floor areas were 40,000 square feet in area.

* Federal, State and Port Authority buildings should comply with New York City building codes and actually in some cases should exceed them. Remember building codes are only minimum standards.
LINK (http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html)

[frets5150]

^


:rolleyes:

[ELVIS]

Thank you, rusty...


:elvis:

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by frets5150
^


:rolleyes:

I just threw it out there. What part in particular sparks (no pun intended) your disregard?
:confused:

[FORD]

Well, for one thing, you would think a deputy fire chief would know the temperature at whcih steel melts. Instead he just went with the Fraudministration spin numbers.

[rustoffa]

I doubt he's an engineer, much less a metalurgist. All in all, his argument/explanation carries weight (no pun intended).
:)

[frets5150]

Originally posted by rustoffa
I just threw it out there. What part in particular sparks (no pun intended) your disregard?
:confused:

The whole thing :D


Don't tell me you agree with it? :confused:

[ashstralia]

oh no!!! frets rolleyed me!
next jizzy will bannnn me, i just know it.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Instead he just went with the Fraudministration spin numbers.

Yeah ??

That's exactly what I've seen you do time and again, and don't deny it...

Or I'll beat you up...:D

[frets5150]

Originally posted by ashstralia
oh no!!! frets rolleyed me!
next jizzy will bannnn me, i just know it.


Are you here to have a debate or do you come by to leave 1 sentence smartass comments?


:tool:

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by FORD
Well, for one thing, you would think a deputy fire chief would know the temperature at whcih steel melts. Instead he just went with the Fraudministration spin numbers.

so, what temperature have you found steel to melt at in your tests mate?




and thanks from me too, rustoffa, for that interesting read.

now frets will post his 'lightning in a bottle' thing from circa 1985,
with a rolleyes, and we'll all be happy.

if we're really lucky, we'll get a
'tell 'em ford!' too.:)

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by frets5150
Are you here to have a debate or do you come by to leave 1 sentence smartass comments?


:tool:



hahahahaha!!!!!

debate? DE fucking BATE????

mate, take off the foil beanie.

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by frets5150
now can we get back to the original topic
:rolleyes:

i'm off to play curveball....:matrix:

[frets5150]

Go in the woods and play with your Kangaroo MATE!!!

[ashstralia]

Originally posted by frets5150
Go in the woods and play with your Kangaroo MATE!!!





crikey, we call it the bush here mate.

woods are what ya larrup ya golf ball with.


and leave me sheila out of this.


*edit*
they are magnificent creatures, ay?
a big red can stand 6ft and bound along
at 40 mph. awesome to see.

[frets5150]

Originally posted by ashstralia
and leave me sheila out of this.


Oh is that her name well at least you go for the Female Kangaroos :gulp:

[ashstralia]

where' phil?

[frets5150]

Look at some of these High Rise Fires


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2S2f_id7Rlc

[thome]

I once took classes in the standard university curiculum to get my degree in Physics and Thermite Explosion Detection ,but i couldn't
get thru the Physics prerequisites..

So i skipped the Phsyics and jumped beyond that straight to thermite
explosion detection and when i graduated i was qualified to weld
truck boxes onto trailers.

Pur Geenuess!....EeeeeeHawwwwwwww!!

[ELVIS]

So funny I forgot to laugh...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
So funny I forgot to laugh...


ELVIS is actually Pee Wee Herman


makes sense:cool:

[frets5150]

Alex Jones Warns of 9/11 Before it happened!


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/etuZ-MtGUVY"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/etuZ-MtGUVY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>:eek:

[Seshmeister]

It's a pity we don't have the 9-11 thread here any more that I can't bump.

Withing 5 minutes of the first plane hitting there was a thread here started by Full Bug. 10 minutes after the second plane hit I posted it was probably related to Bin Laden.

A day or two later Sarge opened this forum.

[frets5150]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
It's a pity we don't have the 9-11 thread here any more that I can't bump.

Withing 5 minutes of the first plane hitting there was a thread here started by Full Bug. 10 minutes after the second plane hit I posted it was probably related to Bin Laden.

A day or two later Sarge opened this forum.



We are talking about July 25 2001 not 10 minutes after. Did you even bother to listen to it? Let me guess


:rolleyes:

[frets5150]

CNN Analyzes Pentagon 9/11 film

This Lying Bastard Jamie Mcintyre
He does not mention in this clip that
he also said on 911 that there were
no Recognizable plane parts seats luggage
wing section tail section he cuts off his own interview

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TJqj4ISRQnY"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TJqj4ISRQnY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[frets5150]

Jamie Mcintyre's Original interview... Now is there one person here who says this guy is not lying?


http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html

[diamondD]

Originally posted by frets5150
We are talking about July 25 2001 not 10 minutes after. Did you even bother to listen to it? Let me guess


:rolleyes:

I'm not speaking for Sesh, but I never got the impression he was talking about the video.

[frets5150]

Originally posted by diamondD
I'm not speaking for Sesh, but I never got the impression he was talking about the video.

Sounds like he was talkin about the video to me. Or he would have answered by now.

[frets5150]

Rumsfeld says Flight 93 was "shot down."

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x6Xoxaf1Al0"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x6Xoxaf1Al0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by frets5150
Sounds like he was talkin about the video to me. Or he would have answered by now.

Of course I wasn't talking about the video.

I was making the point that even I have made predictions that have come true or at least become the accepted truth.

Make enough claims and predictions and eventually one will come true.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[frets5150]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Of course I wasn't talking about the video.

I was making the point that even I have made predictions that have come true or at least become the accepted truth.

Make enough claims and predictions and eventually one will come true.

Cheers!

:gulp:


Cheers :gulp:

[bobgnote]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Why would there be molten steel in the bottom of all fallen buildings? Why did one building fail that wasn't hit by an airplane nor did it have any substantial fires in it?

The fires started by the impacts were quite hot.

The impacts were enough, to PULL on the WTC towers, AS THE PLANES IMPACTED AND THIS WAS ABSORBED.

So if there were puffs and flashes in the towers at impact or therafter, SO WHAT, ASSHATS. Big Ol' jet Airliner TOOK YOU OFF, as it crashed and the tinkles went on, for awhile.

The REAL mystery re demolition is Bldg. 7, which allegedly went down really neatly, after the impacts and fires supposedly took it down.

Like hell. '7' is a holy number, and the Al Queda attacks are all on 7-day intervals, the lunar cycle, plotted from 9/11/2001.

The whole ADD about this is designed to undermine funding for ERTs, then call them out, when the US knows another attack is to happen, AND LET YOU ASSHATS ALL GET BLOWN AWAY. Complain some, OK?

2008 approaches, and no mre 007 is evident, after that time ripens.

[bobgnote]

Originally posted by Nitro Express
Why would there be molten steel in the bottom of all fallen buildings? Why did one building fail that wasn't hit by an airplane nor did it have any substantial fires in it?

The fires started by the impacts were quite hot.

The impacts were enough, to PULL on the WTC towers, AS THE PLANES IMPACTED AND THIS WAS ABSORBED.

So if there were puffs and flashes in the towers at impact or therafter, SO WHAT, ASSHATS. Big Ol' jet Airliner TOOK YOU OFF, as it crashed and the tinkles went on, for awhile.

The REAL mystery re demolition is Bldg. 7, which allegedly went down really neatly, after the impacts and fires supposedly took it down.

Like hell. '7' is a holy number, and the Al Queda attacks are all on 7-day intervals, the lunar cycle, plotted from 9/11/2001.

The whole ADD about this is designed to undermine funding for ERTs, then call them out, when the US knows another attack is to happen, AND LET YOU ASSHATS ALL GET BLOWN AWAY. Complain some, OK?

2008 approaches. No more 007 is evident, after that time ripens.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by frets5150
Don't tell me you agree with it? :confused:

In all honesty, I can see the basis for grassy knoll theories' applied to this....you know, the failed attempt under a previous administration certainly laid a real or imagined groundwork.

Don't get me wrong, there's a time and place for the knolls'. They just seem to morph into mountains occasionally. Believe what you want, read more. Read everything....

Over and out.
:)

[jcook11]

Hey FORD, If chimpy/the BCE had anything to do with 9/11, Why would he be sitting in a room full of kids reading a book and when his people whispered in his ear he looked like he had just seen a ghost?

[frets5150]

Originally posted by jcook11
Hey FORD, If chimpy/the BCE had anything to do with 9/11, Why would he be sitting in a room full of kids reading a book and when his people whispered in his ear he looked like he had just seen a ghost?


If this was not planned the Secret Sevice would have lifted him 5 feet off the ground and brought him to some place safe. Chimp would have no say in it thats their job The Secret Service was in on it .Instead he hangs around reading Pet Goat and takes photos with the class. Looked like he had just seen a ghost you say? He thought it was a drill not the real thing :mad:

[ELVIS]

What's an asshat ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by jcook11
Hey FORD, If chimpy/the BCE had anything to do with 9/11, Why would he be sitting in a room full of kids reading a book and when his people whispered in his ear he looked like he had just seen a ghost?

Why would he have surface to air missile batteries on the roof of the hotel he slept in the night before, in Florida?

Why would Jeb sign legislation allowing himself to enact martial law and dispatch the National Guard on Sept 7, which was just two "business" days before the attacks?

The BCE clearly expected something to happen, and apparently thought their own mini-dictatorship of Florida could have been a target.

[Nitro Express]

More and more people are accepting the thermite cutting charges theory and the people making the claims have the credentials to buy some credability. Thermite cutting charges are one thing to question.

The second question is who put them in the two World Trade Center towers and building 7? Al Quaida? Osama Bin Laden is a structural engineer and his family runs a huge construction company that has built large buildings. Maybe the terrorists knew the plane impacts wouldn't bring the buildings down and instatlled thermite cutting charges to make sure those buildings did go down.

Why World Trade Center building 7? The NYC emergency response center and sevral govt. agencies had offices in that building. Plus, a large substation was under the building. Taking the substation out would cut off power to the whole area.

Whoever it was, really wanted to scare the shit out of people and possibly crash the stock market.

What's wrong with looking at the data on the possibility of thermite cutting charges? You still have to quess who put them there.

[diamondD]

Originally posted by FORD
Why would he have surface to air missile batteries on the roof of the hotel he slept in the night before, in Florida?

Why would Jeb sign legislation allowing himself to enact martial law and dispatch the National Guard on Sept 7, which was just two "business" days before the attacks?





LOL These are 2 new good ones. :D Got some legitimate sources or should I just continue to laugh?


Aren't all governors allowed to dispatch the National Guard? I know that's been the case here for as long as I can remember. Keep reaching...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What's an asshat ??


Just look in the mirror ;)

[diamondD]

Link (http://www.texascivilrightsreview.org/phpnuke/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=496)





Whitman said it's important to remember that governors have authority to mobilize their National Guard forces as they see fit as long as they pay for the mobilization from within state budgets.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 largely forbids the U.S. military from becoming involved in domestic law-enforcement actions. The Coast Guard and National Guard troops under the control of state governors are excluded from the act, however.

"This country has always had a certain level of discomfort with military doing things that are law enforcement-type activities," a senior official said on background.


This is why it's so hard to take your claims seriously Dave. You try to make a Bush conspiracy out of everything. Were the BSCE around in 1878 now? :rolleyes: