WTC Challenge

My understanding from what was said is that the debris created almost like an underground oven, that trapped the heat from the fires that were burning when the buildings collapsed. There was nowhere for the heat to go, because of the tons of debris piled ontop of the fires, so it just stayed hot, for a long time. That's what was said anyway.

No hijackers were reported to be caught in security check, so all 19 had to go through it whitout getting caught, and there weren't other hijackers trying to plane, right? Well, if each person has 8 / 10 chances to get through, odds that everybody get through is 0.8^19 = 0.014 = 1,4 %

Those lucky bastards

Why would they be stopped? They weren't carrying anything illegal with them, as long as they didn't say anything or do something to give away what they planned why would they stop them?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe you can explain to me what exactly it is that you believe caused those hot spots, Anok, because it's not really something I've looked into or know much about.

I'm not sure what caused them but I would say that it was not normal.
If the hot spots were under a lot of rubble would there be enough oxygen for regular building debris to stay that hot for that long?
Steel for example will begin to cool immediately after the heat source is removed, regardless of whether it's under tons of rubble or not, to answer Zaphods statement. Even an oven will not generate heat or maintain heat without an external heat source. If that was the case we could heat our homes pretty darn cheaply, no? That would be almost free energy if we could get steel to stay hot for days in a simple oven type device.

This site proposes the theory that some kind of thermite explosive was used...

"A thermite reaction also generates large amounts of ultraviolet radiation:
On 27 September, the officials ordered 2000 gallons of [Pyrocool FEF], which when added to water produces a slippery, low-viscosity foam. ... Berger adds that "Pyrocool also contains two powerful ultra-violet absorbers." [New Scientist]

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

"Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source (such as air). Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment (it will burn merrily underwater, for example), given sufficient initial heat."

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm no expert on this for sure and I just saw this for the first time today, but worth considering, no?

[edit on 26/7/2005 by ANOK]

On and offtopic at the same time maybe, but did anyone else notice the Irony of Howards current avatar?

The never ending staircase.



All hes doing in this thread is lead the researchers in circles.

You all should consider teaming up in the Research forum and start a research project encompasing any and all information and research fields on the WTC collapse.
Starting with a clean slate, with no stated reason or bias of what caused the collapse. Going to a conclusion of what, of many factors, caused the collapse, or what the many posible causes could be.

The NIST report is nothing more then a report constructed with the starting idea of the WTC 1, 2 and 7 to have failed due to fires, its not ment as a piece of research to what caused the buildings to collapse, its ment as a piece of research to state what has to have happend if fire was the cause of the collapses.

The report doesn't look for the cause of the collapses, its states what caused it and then twists and turns facts and science to fit the conclusion that was preset before they even started writing the report.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why would they be stopped? They weren't carrying anything illegal with them, as long as they didn't say anything or do something to give away what they planned why would they stop them?

I touhgth that because of knifes.. but now when I think more I remember that those knifes were plastic, and I don't know did all 19 have a knife..

Originally posted by msdos464
No hijackers were reported to be caught in security check, so all 19 had to go through it whitout getting caught, and there weren't other hijackers trying to plane, right? (snippetysnip)

Several of the hijackers were flagged....10 of them, in fact, were flagged by CAPPS. All this means is that they're not able to board the plane until their luggage has been screened and boarded seperately.

Oddly enough, when I flew fairly recently (a year ago) from Phil. to Chicago, I was also flagged, as I had purchased a one-way ticket.

So, I had to go through precautionary screening. What did that entail?

I was automatically taken to one side during the initial screening, and my carryon (I didn't check-in any luggage) was opened and investigated; laptop was opened, but was not switched on. I was carrying a toothbrush in a case that *cough* might have resembled a certain type of adult...toy...and more was made of that object than anything else (full manicure tool set, even hairdresser's scissors - these weren't even looked at, though they were in full view). After laughing at (and with) me for carrying what they thought was an adult toy, and upon realising it was actually a measly little toothbrush, all was well and I was cleared to board the plane.

With my manicure set, and my scissors.

Sorry, this digresses much more than I'd intended; point is, even the post 9/11 security changes are not really doing much to counter potential danger. I mean heck, I'm a 5ft tall white female peacenik Buddhist...with a pair o' scissors! I could've been their worst nightmare.

You just never know.

(/end lame attempt at humour)





[edit on 26-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]

Originally posted by msdos464

I touhgth that because of knifes.. but now when I think more I remember that those knifes were plastic, and I don't know did all 19 have a knife..

It wouldn't have mattered if they were plastic or metal. Under 4 inches was legal prior to 9/11

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by msdos464

I touhgth that because of knifes.. but now when I think more I remember that those knifes were plastic, and I don't know did all 19 have a knife..

It wouldn't have mattered if they were plastic or metal. Under 4 inches was legal prior to 9/11

It was allowed to take a metal knife to plane?

Originally posted by Tinkleflower

Originally posted by msdos464
No hijackers were reported to be caught in security check, so all 19 had to go through it whitout getting caught, and there weren't other hijackers trying to plane, right? (snippetysnip)

Several of the hijackers were flagged....10 of them, in fact, were flagged by CAPPS. All this means is that they're not able to board the plane until their luggage has been screened and boarded seperately.

Oddly enough, when I flew fairly recently (a year ago) from Phil. to Chicago, I was also flagged, as I had purchased a one-way ticket.

So, I had to go through precautionary screening. What did that entail?

I was automatically taken to one side during the initial screening, and my carryon (I didn't check-in any luggage) was opened and investigated; laptop was opened, but was not switched on. I was carrying a toothbrush in a case that *cough* might have resembled a certain type of adult...toy...and more was made of that object than anything else (full manicure tool set, even hairdresser's scissors - these weren't even looked at, though they were in full view). After laughing at (and with) me for carrying what they thought was an adult toy, and upon realising it was actually a measly little toothbrush, all was well and I was cleared to board the plane.

With my manicure set, and my scissors.

Sorry, this digresses much more than I'd intended; point is, even the post 9/11 security changes are not really doing much to counter potential danger. I mean heck, I'm a 5ft tall white female peacenik Buddhist...with a pair o' scissors! I could've been their worst nightmare.

You just never know.

(/end lame attempt at humour)





[edit on 26-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]

That sucks man, that sucks.

white4life: I think that'll more likely be "that sucks girl, that sucks"

Manicure set, hairdryer, posible sextoy ...

Originally posted by thematrix
white4life: I think that'll more likely be "that sucks girl, that sucks"

Manicure set, hairdryer, posible sextoy ...

You just made my entire morning lol

(Yes, I be femalien)

Back to the topic though, before we get spanked for derailment...

Any knife blade that was under 4 inches, and not illegal (throwing knives, double edged knives etc) or particularly nasty (serrated edges, etc) was allowed to go on the plane in the cabin. But you couldn't take a baseball bat in the cabin. If you knew half of the things that went on prior to, and even after 9/11 you would never get on a plane again. heh.

Look at that you leave for 10 mins and look what happens, everyone forgets conspiracies and start talking about female toys, scissors, manicure sets and spanking.

anyways back on topic,

There were plenty of chances to stop the 9/11 "suspected" hijackers.



Didn't the devout muslims go to strip clubs and get drunk not only that but didn't they stay at Maryland near the NSA HQ?? How could they possibly have not known and if your on a suicide mission I doubt you would want your hotel ANYWHERE near an American Intel agency??

~Peace ~

Well you got your wish HR

WTC Collapse: A rebuttal to the NIST report
author: Kevin Ryan



The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance

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. portland.indymedia.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">More



(1.) www.boulderweekly.com...

(2.) CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. wtc.nist.gov...
4. www.voicesofsept11.org...
5. wtc.nist.gov... (pg 11)
6. www.forging.org...

Originally posted by ANOK

How do you explain thermal hotspots howwie?

"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." [ABC News, 9/18/01]

2000 degrees Fahrenheit equals 1093 degrees Celsius. This is well within the temperature range of a typical structure fire, not just one involving jet fuel.

The temperature of a common candle flame has been reported to range from 1670 degrees K (2546.33 degree Fahrenheit) to 1930 K (3014.33 degree Fahrenheit)

"Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert on the fires caused by jet fuel burning in the WTC buildings: "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."

Exactly, the steel failed long before the melting temperature was reached.

cms.firehouse.com...

"Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon."

www.americanfreepress.net...

"Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center."

These comments have been discussed before. Suffice to say that I believe that they are anecdotal and unverifiable.

It is known that a molten materials, most likely aluminum was present in the buildings as a result of the fires.

Another reaction that occurs during a fire is the formation of eutectic alloys. A eutectic is defined as the lowest melting point of an alloy or solution of two or more substances that is obtainable by varying the percentage of the components. This takes place when the melting temperature of one material is reached during the fire, and this melting material comes in contact with another metal. The resulting mixture (alloy) will melt at a temperature lower than the melting temperature of the higher melting temperature metal, and in many cases lower than either metal. In fire situations eutectic alloying occurs when molten aluminum or zinc comes in contact with steel or copper.

Copper wiring, tubing, and piping are quite often affected by alloying. Aluminum can mix with the copper to form an alloy, which ranges in color from yellow to silvery. The surface of the spot of aluminum might appear gray in color, while the surface near the aluminum-copper interface may be fairly dark. The copper wire will be very brittle. Zinc also will alloy with copper, forming a yellowing brass.

Alloying with steel does not readily occur in most fires; however, if aluminum or zinc is heated for an extended time with a steel object then alloying may result in pits or holes. Alloying may be confirmed by metallurgical analysis, and the alloy may be identified. One theory is that if metals with high melting temperatures are found melted, this is an indication of incendiarism. Scientific fact shows that if these metals are melted due to alloying, such melting is not an indication that accelerants or unusually high temperatures were present during the fire.

www.maiif.net...


FYI, eutectic reactions w ere confirmed with metallurgical analysis of WTC steel.

"A few seconds after 10:00 am", former Colonel Donn De Grand Pre notes, "we see a great white cloud of smoke and dust rising from the base of the [South] tower. The anchor gal on Fox 5 News video exclaims 'There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion! Another building in the WTC complex …'" [Barbarians Inside the Gates: Book Two: The Viper's Venom: p 50]

Well since the collapse of WTC 2 occurred at 9:59, a minute before 10:00 am, I’m not really sure what is being described here. It is clear that the time line is off. If they were looking at the base of the building, how do you know that the collapse had not already started?

"Dr Eaton said: ‘We were given a fascinating insight into what had been happening at the site. Our hosts, under the firm’s principal engineer George Tamaro (F), had been constantly involved at Ground Zero for several months. They had been called in as foundation engineers within a week of 11 September, and had spent several months examining the stability of the debris and the diaphragm wall all around the site, commonly known as the “bathtub” They had been key individuals in advising on the excavation of the site, with a great deal of care being needed before debris could be removed in order to maintain the stability of the original slurry walls.
‘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’."

www.libertypost.org...

Are these cross sections examples of “molten” steel from WTC? No, just a case of eutectic erosion (hot corrosion)

UL Says NO WAY WTC
Steel Could Melt At 2000 F
UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study
911Truth.org
11-14-4

"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)

www.vinesbranch.com...

Poor Kevin R. Ryan. If he isn’t a classic example of the Peter Principle in action, I don’t know what is. Too bad he shows no understanding that the ASTM standard applied to the floor truss/ composite floor assembly has nothing to do with the melting point of steel.


[edit on 26-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by bsbray11


It does not 'determine the collapse mechanism'! I'm assuming by this you mean the totally unsupported idea that a slab of concrete fell and caused a whole skyscraper to collapse, top to bottom. Not once, but twice! Not only does the NIST report not provide any evidence here, as there is none and this is total conjecture, but you are being extremely hypocritical by embracing this idea while dismissing others that offer much better explanations, ie demolition.

I was right, you didn’t read it or you don’t understand it, because that is a very poor summary of the collapse mechanism.

If you read the report and looked at the evidence you would know that the initiating events for collapses started long before the buildings actually fell. Both collapse sequences started when the damaged floor slabs inside the buildings began to sag, causing the exterior walls of the buildings to bow inwards by up to 10 inches. Pulling the walls inward caused them to loose much of their structural strength, regardless of what temperature they were at. Once these walls were pulled inward this much, global collapse was only a matter of time.

Think of it this way. If you stand a wooden yard stick straight up and put a 100 lbs weight on it, as long as that stick is straight, it will support that weight. But, if you push the middle of the stick outward, so that it bows, you will reach a point where the stick snaps from the weight.

There was evidence of this bowing before the collapses of both towers. There was also clear evidence that interior floor slabs fell.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
My understanding from what was said is that the debris created almost like an underground oven, that trapped the heat from the fires that were burning when the buildings collapsed. There was nowhere for the heat to go, because of the tons of debris piled ontop of the fires, so it just stayed hot, for a long time. That's what was said anyway.

Don't forget, also that the building was typical in that there were many types of materials present in the structure. I recall reading a report that said that over 800 compressed gas cylinders were recovered from ground zero debris. Many of these were firefighter air tanks. A fair number were also part of the various welding and cutting rigs inevitably found in large buildings.

What would have happened if any of those tanks leaked after the collapse?

Originally posted by ANOK
I'm not sure what caused them but I would say that it was not normal.
If the hot spots were under a lot of rubble would there be enough oxygen for regular building debris to stay that hot for that long?

There are underground coal fires that have burned for decades. One that was recently extinguished in China burned for over 100 years.



[edit on 26-7-2005 by HowardRoark]

Originally posted by Sauron
Well you got your wish HR

WTC Collapse: A rebuttal to the NIST report
author: Kevin Ryan



The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). . . .

Well to begin with Mr. Ryan is responding to the 10/14/04 interim report, not the final report. Ignoring that, however, there are a number of problems with his “rebuttal.”

He writes: ”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.”

What makes no sense at all is his apparent misapplication of ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials. This standard is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly, not the individual components.

I have to seriously question the competence or motives of anyone that would make such an egregious error.

Furthermore, E119 only applies if the floor truss systems were totally undamaged by the impact, with all the fireproofing intact.

Since this was obviously not the case, claiming that the floors would not have failed based on ASTM E119 is stupid.

Originally posted by msdos464

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Why would they be stopped? They weren't carrying anything illegal with them, as long as they didn't say anything or do something to give away what they planned why would they stop them?

I touhgth that because of knifes.. but now when I think more I remember that those knifes were plastic, and I don't know did all 19 have a knife..

Zaphod, none of the hijackers' names appeared on any of the passenger lists for the hijacked planes. That means they weren't supposed to be on those flights. That means there was something odd about how they got on board. Another oddity is that all the hijacked planes were mostly empty on 9/11 too, with each having about a fourth of their total capacity.