FEMA says melted steel at WTC 7

The following has photographic proof, which is actual proof, WTC 7 fell in its own footprint just as WTC 1 and 2, yet was imploded differently It also shows WTC 7 under construction and being erected with no significant differences compared to WTC 1 and 2. 7th floor down would not have collapsed the rest of WTC 7 at all. But then people have to understand the construction of the buildings in the WTC complex, including WTC 7. Some obviously do not.

Excellect photos before and after 9/11/2001:

cryptome.org...

Getting into the collapse of WTC7 is veering a little off topic but it leads to the situation that steel elements of the fallen building found itself in. Some will claim it was a deliberately planted device or devices that caused failure of critical structural elements, I'm suggesting that same failure didn't necessarily need any devices. If the building fell without being damaged by falling parts of WTC1 and subsequent fires I'd be with you 100% IE it would need help to fall because healthy buildings don't do that.

Those generators would either each have a high capacity battery/charger setup for starting or be fed via a DC bus from a much larger battery room - I can't find any detail to clarify that but the presence of a large amount of strong sulphuric acid solution in the building is assured. The sulphuric acid leaking onto hot steel could be the source of the erosion attack on the steel. Note - I'm NOT claiming the acid brought the building down.

For the chemists here: what is the effect of boiling diluted sulphuric acid?
From my experience the H2O boils away until the H2SO4 is all that's left with the latent heat of boiling water at 100C preventing evaporation of the acid until all water is gone. So we end up with pure acid on the steel and how long was it like that before being found. Just a possibility worth considering IMHO.

The contents of transformers, switchgear and motor-generator sumps represents a large fuel load apart from the partially recovered diesel so there would be an impressive amount of volatile fuel to generate heat in the ruins.

There were also large UPS setups in the towers which would be either NiFe cells (akaline) or lead-acid batteries, usually the latter for cost/performance/reliability reasons.

[edit on 12/1/2008 by Pilgrum]

reply to post by Pilgrum


It never has happened and never will happen, because what you are saying goes completely against the laws of nature (physical science and quantum physics). If you believe it has, where is your proof of past precedent? You have to produce that or admit it is just your opinion without proof of such. You need scientific proof to present. Do you have any?

reply to post by Pilgrum


OSHA would shut down any buildings using generators inside along with fuel tanks to feed them.

I should note that I'm trying to look at all the information available impartially and if all the mundane possibilities can be eliminated completely then I'll be able to move up to more fantastic possibilities.

Some may think that it's a leap of faith to consider the events happened due to 'ordinary' causes IE no CD but what would you call the idea of an underground secret nazi organisation convincing shadowy assassins to run around inside burning buildings planting bombs?

Originally posted by OrionStars
OSHA would shut down any buildings using generators inside along with fuel tanks to feed them.

Perhaps you should take up that issue with OSHA and other relevant authorities IE why was that dangerous construction permitted - a virtual fuel dump in an office building in the middle of NYC. A lot of building codes must have been relaxed to allow it to happen.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Why should I take it up with OSHA or anyone else? I did not work in or around those buildings, and they are gone now with no physical proof any generators or diesel tanks were sitting on any floors inside WTC 7.

If you have proof beyond hearsay they were, by all means present it, or stop passing on hearsay. It only confuses investigations of physcial reality evidence.

reply to post by Pilgrum


Not to go to far off topic here, but really what we are talking about is "EVIL", that some people have committed. There can be no argument there, You and I will agree, that "EVIL" or at least something horrible was done on 9/11. Now, just who was behind it? It is easier for us to always blame "THEM" instead of thinking it is "US".

It is easier to think it is people who are dressed in "robes" and seem archaic in their thinking. However, I ask you to look seriously at some things in the past.

#1. Operation Northwoods--
abcnews.go.com...

Fake Terrorism was planned by the JOINT CHIEFS way back in the early 60's! Now, the claim by skeptics is that....."Well Operation Northwoods never occured".

I say, so what! Just the fact they were planning such a thing speaks volumes, they wouldn't plan something like this if they thought they didn't have the means to achieve.

#2. Human Radiation Experiments
www.whale.to...

"Some of the classified government experiments included:

* Exposing more than 100 Alaskan villagers to radioactive iodine during the 1960s.

* Feeding 49 retarded and institutionalised teenagers radioactive iron and calcium in their cereal during the years 1946-1954.

* Exposing about 800 pregnant women in the late 1940s to radioactive iron to determine the effect on the fetus.

* Injecting 7 newborns (six were Black) with radioactive iodine.

* Exposing the testicles of more than 100 prisoners to cancer-causing doses of radiation. This experimentation continued into the early 1970s.

* Exposing almost 200 cancer patients to high levels of radiation from cesium and cobalt. The AEC finally stopped this experiment in 1974.

* Administering radioactive material to psychiatric patients in San Francisco and to prisoners in San Quentin.

* Administering massive doses of full body radiation to cancer patients hospitalised at the General Hospital in Cincinnati, Baylor College in Houston, Memorial Sloan-Kettering in New York City, and the US Naval Hospital in Bethesda, during the 1950s and 1960s. The experiment provided data to the military concerning how a nuclear attack might affect its troops.

* Exposing 29 patients, some with rheumatoid arthritis, to total body irradiation (100-300 rad dose) to obtain data for the military. This was conducted at the University of California Hospital in San Francisco."

I ask you, is not the above "EVIL"? Widespread, and done in the most unthinkable places.

You see Pilgrum I could go on with such things. But suffice it to say, these things do happen. The people that do this think they are doing this in the cause of the "GREATER GOOD" and they delude themselves.

Its like the OLD saying "the greatest trick of the devil is to make you believe he doesn't exist".

The greatest thing that these people have going for them is that the majority of people would never believe it. It sounds to "LUDICROUS" or "RIDICULOUS", so people just dismiss it. But think again, there is so much that has happened, that people need to investigate more and then come to their own conclusions.

I don't want to take this thread OFF TOPIC, but I remind people that All Options must be Kept OPEN when investigating things like the FEMA report brought to light.

KEEP ALL OPTIONS OPEN, any investigator would. Then eliminate things when you logically can.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by OrionStars
911review.com...

No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.

Just to illustrate how much this is (or is not). One of my projects I'm working on right now is $200,000. That is just for the investigation, report generation and construction document generation for a limestone facade rehabilitation.

Only 3 times that amout was given to FEMA for an "investigation" of the biggest disaster in our lifetimes? That right there should throw red flags in front of people IMO.

Originally posted by talisman
KEEP ALL OPTIONS OPEN, any investigator would. Then eliminate things when you logically can.

That's exactly the way it should be approached.

There's definitely a lot of 'fishyness' in the whole affair but I put faked plane crashes, bombed buildings and thousands of civilian and foreign national casualties at the extreme end of the scale of possibilities, even for a crazed tyrant.

reply to post by Griff
The level of government 'thinking' immediately following 9/11 certainly defies reason and no doubt they could come up with a good explanation for it if cornered.

I get the feeling that it's actually beneficial to 'someone' to have large numbers of people talking about the size of dust particles and how pieces of steel bent indefinitely. And it's a disturbing feeling too.

Just to give people an idea of the scale & weight of those motor-generators on the 5th floor, there were at least 9 1725kVA alternators from memory and each had a diesel motor rated at about 2500HP plus a suitably rated transformer and circuit breaker to couple them to the HV busbars. The total generation capacity of the building including the variety of smaller MG sets was 20 megawatts or more so this was a fully fledged power station mounted directly over a zone substation.

Very atypical construction indeed, probably unique

Just to give people an idea of the scale & weight of those motor-generators on the 5th floor, there were at least 9 1725kVA alternators from memory and each had a diesel motor rated at about 2500HP plus a suitably rated transformer and circuit breaker to couple them to the HV busbars. The total generation capacity of the building including the variety of smaller MG sets was 20 megawatts or more so this was a fully fledged power station mounted directly over a zone substation.

Very atypical construction indeed, probably unique

reply to post by Pilgrum


You have just spent three posts telling us you prefer to look at 9/11 by hearsay. We prefer to throughly evaluate by physical and self-evident evidence using science, logical analysis, and take hearsay as a grain of salt. Which to you is the better investigative method?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Very atypical construction indeed, probably unique

WTC7 is obviously a unique structure, but I don't think you're qualified to say whether or not the construction methods were atypical, or even if that would have any bearing whatsoever on its collapse.

Everything (all the loading) was transferred the same way it would be in any other building. If the loads were more in some part of the building, guess what? The columns were also bigger. That's why people hire structural engineers in the first place. I've seen construction photos of WTC7 and it contained the largest columns and beams I have ever seen in my life.




You'll notice the huge member in the photo above supports only a FLOOR load, so you get the idea of how they compensated for a lot of heavy equipment.

There's also an article from the 1980's describing how WTC7 was designed to have every other floor completely gutted and everything would still be up to code. That thing was built.

[edit on 13-1-2008 by bsbray11]

The architect knew what he was doing. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

reply to post by bsbray11
It was a remarkable feat of engineering as were the towers.

If not for those very unusual contents and high potential fuel load the observed heat and corrosion damage to steel and the prolonged high temperature in the rubble fires would be far less likely to be from 'natural' causes.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
If not for those very unusual contents

Something else I don't think you're qualified to judge.

and high potential fuel load

Same. "High potential" compared to what? A wood fire? Or the amount of energy/power it would take to sufficiently heat that much steel?

the observed heat and corrosion damage to steel and the prolonged high temperature in the rubble fires would be far less likely to be from 'natural' causes.

I have to say I don't that "natural causes" have much chance of explaining it, anyway. Just my opinion.

reply to post by bsbray11
I hoped not to appear to be setting myself up as a judge.

I'm just looking at what was possible with all the materials at hand before moving onto more radical possibilities involving additional outside help to achieve the observed results.

I haven't been at this for very long so who knows - I might come across something that pushes me over to where more sinister theories are the only possible explanation

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I haven't been at this for very long so who knows - I might come across something that pushes me over to where more sinister theories are the only possible explanation

I'm not fully there yet myself. That's why I come here to debate and find what other people think. Please post if you find anything.

Can you agree that this corrosion of the steel could possibly be a major find? To the construction industry worldwide? Without having to go into a conspiracy? Since the potential would be there for every building to do this?