posted May 16, 2011 06:58 AM            

The American Scientist who made this video indicates that a building known as the The Windsor Tower burnt for 20 hours and did not collapse. He uses Plancks Law to assess the temperature and has even shown a person standing on what is alleged to be "steel melting" temperature, the bare faced lie foisted on the public.

He explains the mechanics of random stress failures clearly. NIST does not explain these failures at all.

Kevin Ryan of UL debunked the NIST's "pancake theory" to mislead the 9-11 Commission. He was fired for his honesty.

This video is a must have reference for students of the 9-11 tragedy.

posted May 16, 2011 09:46 AM            

There are those psuedo scientists, believers in fairy tales and those whose intellectual curiousity doesn't permit them to take even the most cursory look at facts before blasting off into never-never land.

They are always in the dark and some of them seem to prefer it that way. After all, if they ever managed to...even accidentially..get a look at the truth, some of their most cherished beliefs would be destroyed.

For those who prefer to be kept in the dark and fed bullshiiiit...like little mushrooms...don't read any further.

The World Trade Center Towers were supported by steel beams. Typically, steel support beams are temperered steel; meaning that after the steel beams are formed into shape, they're reheated in a process called "tempering". Tempering rearranges the molecules so they're all running in the same direction. This makes the steel beams stronger and it's typically done at temperatures up to 1200*F, then the beams are quenched. Quenching in oil..generally, rapidly cools the steel. But, there's a trade-off when steel is tempered at high temperatures. The higher the tempering temperature, the more brittle the steel becomes so, depending on the side loads the beams are designed to support, they may be tempered at lower temperatures...400*F to 700*F.

See how easy this really is?

When tempered steel is reheated to high temperatures...by any mechanism whatsoever...it begins to lose the molecular alignment which was the object of tempering to begin with AND begins to lose structural strength.

At about 1000*F, steel has lost 50% of it's structural load bearing strength.

At about 1475*F steel has lost 90% of it's structural load bearing strength.

Jet fuel burns at 1790*F...more than 300*F higher than the point at which steel loses 90% of it's load bearing structural strength.

So, the steel support beams of the World Trade Center Towers didn't need to MELT to collapse the Twin Towers.

In fact, it's a miracle the Twin Towers of the WTC remained verticle as long as they did.

posted May 17, 2011 05:06 AM            

Jet Fuel does not burn at 1790 F, here is the accurate temperature proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

Approximately 560 F only, not enough to melt Steel in less than 2 hours. Plus the volume of fuel was insufficient, plus the other case where a 20 hour continuous inferno did not collapse the steel.

Most of the fuel during 9-11 was lost after the initial explosion, please see the step by step analysis in the first message.

posted May 17, 2011 10:17 AM            

You've stated the "open air" burning temperature of jet fuel. A condition whereby all the oxygen surrounding the surface of a jet fuel fire is burned up and suppresses the burning rate and temperature jet fuel can reach. Further, the heat from "open air" burning is radiated away into an almost unlimited amount of air...and dissipated.

However IQ, that was not the case in the WTC. No one poured jet fuel into a pan in the open air and lit it off. Nope.

When the aircraft hit the WTC, the elevator shaft was severed, jet fuel went gushing down the shaft, ignited and the fire was fed oxygen like a blowtorch.

You forgot something else IQ...and so do the shlubs you like to refer to as..."scientists".

When those aircraft hit the WTC, the fuel tanks ruptured and "sprayed" jet fuel as a mist on everything which also burned like it was having blowtorch like heat applied.

And IQ, there's something else your so called scientists won't talk about...or don't know enought to talk about.

When there's an open air fire, the heat of combustion is radiated off into the air and dissipated. Essentially, there's nothing to absorb the heat and radiate it back into the burning area.

In the case of an enclosed fire...like the interior of a building...every object in the enclosed area absorbs the heat of the fire and because there's no way to radiate that heat off...the objects...walls, furniture etc., continue to absorb heat until they reach their auto ignition temperature and then...they ignite and feed the temperature with their own heat energy....like the WTC fires.

Another thing. The structural steel support beams in the WTC were enclosed in their own air spaces. They were not in an "open air" environment and though steel is a good conductor of heat, there was no way to conduct their rising temperature away by radiation. Their temperature rose and continued to rise until they reached a temperature which weakened their structural strength to the point they couldn't support the tremendous loads they were carrying.

But, all that is merely factual data. The factual data cannot be countered by emotional conspiracy arguments.

However IQ, for the conspiracy theorists to be taken seriously, they need to explain the lack of explosive residue. They claim there was a controlled demolition of the WTC.

In every explosion of bomb material, there's the left over residue which coats everything. Labs can not only identify bomb residue but they can identify what kind of explosive was used.

It took months and thousands of people...many volunteers, to clear the debris from the WTC.

I know you don't want to talk about this..and neither do the crackpots at "Concerned Scientists for 9/11 Truth" but...too damned bad; where is the bomb residue from the explosives used in the controlled demolition the crackpots claim and what was the explosive used?

Now, if the crackpots really wanted to be taken seriously, they would have taken samples from the debris and run analysis. They still could because there must be literally thousands of pieces of the WTC debris carted off by those seeking souvenirs. But, they didn't. Which leads reasonable people to question their "scientific credentials" because every credible scientist would know all about bomb residue.

posted May 18, 2011 04:39 AM            

But these points have been covered in the first link. To melt steel in closed environment, one needs vastly more amount of fuel than the residue after an explosion. It is not that the steel was in a vessel and all the jet fuel was poured systematically into that vessel, closed, and ignited.

Random amounts of remnnant fuel cannot attain the alleged high temperature for the given time, nor can they attain such high temperatures with a wide open hole in one side of the building. A woman was standing there, how did she manage if it was so hot?

Look at the Fukushima Plant recently, the concrete structure did not fall down until after dozens of hours in spite of more than 5000 degrees temperature in the core.

There is no closed core in a skyscraper building, it is widely open.

And why did the other building in the video link not fall down after a 20 hour blaze?

The argument against explosive residue is that advanced military grade thermite used in strategic locations like corner points of the building cannot leave residue.

Yet another argument explained is the free fall of the structure, and the anomaly of the second building falling first.

More anomalies: The odd case of Building 7
------------------------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4&feature=related

The fall of building 7 helped wipe out several incriminating files relating to Enron, WorldCom etc. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 did not fall in spite of sustaining so much more damage.

posted May 18, 2011 10:40 AM            

The residue from a "Thermite" reaction is aluminum oxide. So, your point about NO RESIDUE from thermite is a non-starter.

Beams cut from a heat reaction on steel leave the beam discolored with globs of molten steel surrounding the cut. The only beams "cut" at the WTC debris site were on beams sticking up out of the rubble after the towers collapsed..and they were cut by firefighters with a plasma torch and cut on an angle to control the direction they would fall.

The comparison building used to push the batshiiit crazy conspiracy theory was an old building with entirely different construction from the WTC towers. The WTC towers used a new...at the time..construction method using much more steel instead of concrete. Concrete is much better able to withstand high heats.

The insulation used on the WTC tower support beams was a spray on type and not the asbestos used in older construction. Examination showed the spray on insulation did not adhere properly and flaked off, giving no insulation against the heat of the fire.

There was an inner core in the WTC towers. That core consisted of vertical steal beams and an elevator shaft...which was severed by the aircraft. Additionally, that elevator shaft was enclosed in sheet-rock and was not the reinforced concrete used in older construction. When that elevator shaft was severed, air rushed upward..by convection.. from the basement and other floors and fed fresh oxygen into the fire. If you want to see what happens when a fire is fed high velocity air, start a charcoal fire in your barbecue and when the coals are lit...blow on them. They will glow and heat up rapidly.

Exactly, the Fukushima nuclear plant was a concrete structure. The WTC towers were NOT.

As for the woman on the ledge. She was partially shielded from the direct radiation of the fire. Further, AIR is a very poor conductor of heat. That's the reason AIR is used as an insulator in insulated glass windows...or used to be before it was found that once the seal was broken, water vapor was drawn into the air space between the glass panels and fogged up the windows.

You keep talking and the conspiracy theorists keep talking about MELTING steel. That's another non-starter. The steel support beams in the WTC towers did not need to MELT to weaken to the point they would not support the enormous loads they were designed to carry.

The WTC towers collapsed straight down because the steel support beams weakened, twisted under the load, popped rivets and bolts holding the floor supports and one floor...consisting of at least 100 tons of concrete and steel fell down on the floor below which broke loose the floor supports for that floor and started a chain reaction cascade of falling floors.

Additionally, some have claimed they heard "explosions" and saw glass blown out of the exterior walls of the WTC towers.

That's exactly what one would expect to see when the air contained in 40,000 square feet of floor space x 12-15 feet of vertical airspace on each floor is suddenly compressed from 12-15 feet down to zero. Air is a gas. Gasses exert equal pressure in all directions. When the airspace is compressed, air pressure rises rapidly. The component in a structure with the least ability to contain rising air pressure are the windows. They blew out from air pressure when the floors started collapsing.

If you want to see..and hear what happens when air is suddenly compressed into a smaller area; blow up a paper bag, close off the top and strike the bag hard..with your hand. The area of air in the bag will be reduced and the result will rupture the weakest part of the bag with a sound like a rifle shot.

You're getting further into the weeds with every attempt to justify the spreading of an utterly false conspiracy.

Btw, I watched the video. It's a collection of incoherent 1 second frames which go by so fast it cannot be examined. But, I got it nevertheless.

This is a collection of motley wannabes who never were and never will be trying to make a name for themselves peddling a lying hoax.