Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

From last years interim report:


“It has already been mentioned that substantial fireballs formed on the north, east, and south faces immediately following the plane strike. A brief period of intense burning from openings on these faces was observed after the fireballs dissipated, but in a short period (on the order of 60 seconds) the fires seemed to “damp down” and very little flame and only light smoke was evident from the outside. This period of light burning lasted several minutes before fires began to reappear.

Rapid early fire growth was observed on the east side of the north face on floor 96 and floor 97, the center of the east face on floor 94 and floor 97, and the western side of the south face on floor 96. Even though relatively little initial damage was sustained by the west face, heavy smoke followed shortly by flame appeared around window 97-437 at 8:55 a.m. After this time, a very rapid fire spread was observed across the west face on this floor. Within a couple of minutes, over half of the windows were emitting smoke, and flames were visible in many. Even though floor 92 was not directly struck by the airplane, fire appeared on the east side of the tower on this floor shortly after 9:00 a.m.

Following the initial development of large fires, fire spread continued until WTC 1 collapsed around 10:28 a.m. At times the fires displayed the systematic, relatively slow spread expected for fire growth in a typical building. For instance, after the initial rapid growth phase, fires on floors 92, 94, 96, and 97 on the east face began to move deliberately toward the south. As they spread, the fires would burn intensely at a given location for a while before dying down. As a result, these fires developed the appearance of a wave moving slowly across the building.

There were also certain times and locations during which fire appeared to spread quite rapidly. Some of these episodes were clearly connected with rapid fire growth and likely flashover in rooms. During the first half hour, significant fires were observed toward the centers of floors 92, 94, 96, and 97 on the east face that were spreading towards the north. Each of these fires eventually reached a certain point where further fire spread was inhibited for many minutes. A review of building plans showed that walls of offices or meeting rooms were presented at the locations where fire spread was inhibited.

Apparently, these walls served as effective fire breaks that protected against further fire spread. However, for each of these floors fire and smoke eventually appeared at one of the windows beyond the walls, and after one of these windows was broken fire growth was extremely rapid and robust across the remaining windows. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of flashover within an enclosed space.

At other times, unusually rapid fire growth apparently occurred in areas that are believed to have been relatively open and not constrained by walls. One of these episodes occurred around 9:54 a.m. on the north face. Fire suddenly appeared on floor 96, a location to the west of the damage inflicted by the airplane. Within a very short period of time, fire could be seen in roughly 10 windows covering a distance of more than 30 ft.

Another example of very rapid fire growth appeared to take place on floor 98. In the early period of the fire, this floor did not appear to be heavily involved, and this remained true for quite a while. However, after 9:30 a.m., fire began to appear on this floor and by 10:00 a.m., fires were observed over significant lengths on all four faces of the tower.

One of the more unusual fire spread episodes in WTC 1 occurred just after the collapse of WTC 2 around 9:59 a.m. Within a couple of minutes, a large intense fire suddenly appeared on the south side of the west face on floor 104 in an area well above any other apparent fire. This unusual jump in fire location is difficult to explain, but is likely associated with vertical shafts located in the core of the tower.

For most of the time following the plane strike, no fire was observed on any of the floors on the south face over lengths extending from the eastern edge of the tower to near the center of the face. Fires were not observed in this region of the building until around 10:00 a.m. By the time this tower collapsed roughly 25 minutes later, intense fires extending over significant lengths of the originally uninvolved area were burning on floor 94 to floor 98 in this area.

A final example of rapid fire spread and growth in WTC 1 was described previously in the May 2003 Progress Report for the Investigation (NIST 2003). In this case, a line of smoke appeared suddenly over a significant length of floor 92 on the north face of WTC 1 at 10:18:48 a.m., or roughly 9 minutes before the collapse of the tower. Puffs of smoke were observed simultaneously on the north face from floors 94, 95, and 97. More isolated puffs were seen at the same time from floor 92 and floor 95 on the west face and from floor 92 on the south face. Very shortly (seconds) after the appearance of the smoke, a localized fire on floor 95 to the west of the plane strike location grew very rapidly and flames erupted from windows. Following the smoke release, a large fire began to spread rapidly across the western side of floor 92 on the north face. Previous to the appearance of the smoke, only small fires were evident on this floor. By the time the tower collapsed, this fire had spread across most of the floor and had reached the western wall. This fire was responsible for the large burst of flame from the north face observed when this tower collapsed.


The fire behavior observed in WTC 2 was qualitatively different than occurred in WTC 1. Intense fireballs were created by the released jet fuel on the south, east, and north faces immediately after the airplane struck the building. As observed for WTC 1, the fireballs were followed by a brief period (on the order of a minute) of intense flaming from windows over a large area of the building. Most of these flames then “damped down” as observed in WTC 1, but two regions of intense burning remained. One of these areas was located on floor 81 and floor 82 at the northeast corner of the tower. Flames were evident from windows on either side of the corner as well as the corner itself, which had become exposed by removal of the corner facing during the plane strike. This area is in the vicinity of large piles of debris formed during the plane strike. The second fire was located primarily on floor 79 just to the left of the center (roughly from windows 79-231 to 79-238) of the north face. This is in the area of the second debris pile described earlier. Both of these fires died slowly with time when compared to fires at other locations in WTC 1 and WTC 2. Both were still burning lightly when the tower fell 56 minutes after the plane strike.

A curious aspect of the fire behavior is the existence of an area of the building façade between these two fire locations on the north face where very little fire and/or smoke was observed before the tower collapsed. This area is roughly rectangular in shape, covering floor 80 to floor 82 and extending across windows 249 to 239. Infrared images recorded shortly following the plane strike showed that this region was quite cool relative to other sections close to the fires. This area will be referred to as the “cold spot.” Spreading fires seemed to move around this cold spot.

In general, the fires in WTC 2 appeared to be less active than those observed in WTC 1. The fires covered a smaller area of the façade and did not spread as quickly. This is true even when the shorter time between the plane strike and collapse for WTC 2 (1 hour 42 minutes for WTC 1 and 56 minutes for WTC 2) is taken into account. Nevertheless, there was significant fire spread, and instances of rapid fire growth similar to those seen in WTC 1 did take place.

Around 9:29 a.m., large flames and heavy smoke erupted from an area on the north face just to the right of the cold spot (around window 83-236) on floor 83. Four minutes and forty-one seconds later, flames suddenly appeared at a separate location on the same floor further to the right near window 83-226. Another area of fire formed just to the right of the cold spot on floor 82 around 9:54 a.m. or 5 minutes before the collapse. The fires on floor 79 of the north face also spread towards the west, approaching the western edge of the tower just prior to the collapse.

Initial fire growth on the east face was on floor 82. Around 9:12 a.m., flames could be seen in nearly half of the windows on this floor, and heavy smoke was pouring from additional windows. Only limited fire was evident on lower floors at this time. The fires on floor 82 grew smaller after this time, and most were no longer visible when the tower collapsed. Around 9:35 a.m., heavy flames and smoke appeared over large areas of floor 79 and floor 80. These fires abruptly died down 45 seconds later, before growing back slowly during the remainder of the time before the tower collapsed.

In the early period following the plane strike, fire growth on the south face was seen primarily on floor 81 with active fires present on both sides of the airplane strike location. Smaller isolated fires were present on other floors around the area damaged by the airplane. These fires were relatively quiet and stationary until just prior to the collapse. At 9:56 a.m., there was a sudden release of smoke along much of floor 80 extending from the area of the plane strike to near the western edge. During the next 2 minutes, an intense fire developed covering approximately windows 81-441 to 81-454.

No smoke or fire was observed near the floors struck by the airplane on the west face of WTC 2. Some smoke was apparent at windows higher on the face. This was most likely coming from windows broken by occupants located on these floors.”

More from the above linked report on the molten aluminum

“It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photographs indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 a.m. and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of collapse. Some of the material can be seen falling in Fig. H–21. Close-up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is, floor 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit.

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggests that significant wreckage from the plane passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 and closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temperature, but melt over a temperature range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of liquid increases. The Aluminum Association handbook (Aluminum Association 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500 °C to 638 °C and 475 °C to 635 °C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1,000 °C), and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.”

What precisely does molten aluminum have to do with the pools of molten steel which were confirmed by FEMA and others?

Originally posted by twitchy
What precisely does molten aluminum have to do with the pools of molten steel which were confirmed by FEMA and others?

Can you post a link to the FEMA report that deals with the "pools of molten steel?"

Thanks.

We've already been there on this thread Roark, independently, several FEMA sources ahd said there were pools of molten steel at the base of the towers. Ask yourself why it isn't in the official fema reports, they had plenty of time to compile the statements of their own staff, as they were ordered into NY Sept. 10.

Already mentioned in this thread...

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.

Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation.

AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

The point surely is that the best burning of hydrocarbon fuel does not cause steel to melt or buckle - and with all the smoke it is evident that the fuel was not burning optimally - given the amount of burning plastics within the building
As 'Painful Deceptions' points out, if burning hydrocarbons at their optimal burning temperature cause steel to melt, then your gas hob would be an awful mess of buckling or melting steel burners

[edit on 1-6-2005 by dh]

You mentioned Painful Deceptions, here is the free movie

”Unanswered Questions” Painful Deceptions DVD part 1 (Windows media 4.3 megs)

”Seator Mark Dayton Exposes Coverup” Painful DVD Deceptions Part 2 (wmv 1.6 megs)

”News (Propaganda) Reports” Painful Deception DVD Part 3 (wmv 3.7 megs)

”The Pentagon” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 4 (wmv 2.6 megs)

”AA Flight 77” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 5 (wmv 2.2 megs)

”Pentagon Scraps” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 6 (wmv 3.6 megs)

“Global Hawks - What really hit the Pentagon”” Painful Deceptions DVD part 7 (wmv 3.6 megs)

”Building 7” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 8a (wmv 3.0 megs)

”Building 7” continued – Silverstein confesses” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 8b (wmv 3.0 mrgs)

”The Towers” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 9 (wmv 2.1 megs)

”The Collapse” Painful Deceptions DVD Part 10 (wmv 5.7 megs)

produced by Jimmy Walter and ReOpen911.org

Originally posted by dh
The point surely is that the best burning of hydrocarbon fuel does not cause steel to melt or buckle - and with all the smoke it is evident that the fuel was not burning optimally - given the amount of burning plastics within the building
As 'Painful Deceptions' points out, if burning hydrocarbons at their optimal burning temperature cause steel to melt, then your gas hob would be an awful mess of buckling or melting steel burners

[edit on 1-6-2005 by dh]

You are an idiot, dh.

I'll tell you what. Drain the coolant out of your car and drive it for a few miles.

If an ordinary office fire is incapable of melting or buckling steel, then why do they bother to fireproof steel structures?

response deleted in favour of one below -sorry folks

[edit on 1-6-2005 by dh]

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by dh
The point surely is that the best burning of hydrocarbon fuel does not cause steel to melt or buckle - and with all the smoke it is evident that the fuel was not burning optimally - given the amount of burning plastics within the building
As 'Painful Deceptions' points out, if burning hydrocarbons at their optimal burning temperature cause steel to melt, then your gas hob would be an awful mess of buckling or melting steel burners

[edit on 1-6-2005 by dh]

You are an idiot, dh.

I'll tell you what. Drain the coolant out of your car and drive it for a few miles.

If an ordinary office fire is incapable of melting or buckling steel, then why do they bother to fireproof steel structures?

Tell you what Howard , I've done that with an old diesel engine
It sure enough cracked the engine shell and made it it a non-starter
It didn't melt it, pulverise it, create molten steel

I'm far from an idiot , Howard, whatever you might like the punters to think

partially melted piston



another piston with a hole melted in it.


What about my question on the steel fireproofing?

Why do they even bother to do it if it is impossible to melt or buckle steel in an ordinary structure fire?

Originally posted by HowardRoark

partially melted piston



another piston with a hole melted in it.


What about my question on the steel fireproofing?

Why do they even bother to do it if it is impossible to melt or buckle steel in an ordinary structure fire?

LOL uh howard...
dictionary.reference.com...
dictionary.reference.com...

Any more irrelevant comparisons you'd like to make?



And here they are hauling off the evidence before any inspections were allowed, each truck equipped with an individual GPS related security system. One trucker was fired for returning ten minutes late from his lunch. All that security over some scrap steel, which was nothing more than tampering with a crime scene and illegal destruction of evidence.


The only steel that was examined was hand picked piece of steel beams, supposedly impossible to determine the original location of, so really any conclusions drawn from those examinations are inconclusive at best, aren't they?

Note the word BEFORE in the following...

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

Your seismic causing debris theory is bologna.

www.patrickcrusade.org...
AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius). Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel."

Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement."

Kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, however, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

www.patrickcrusade.org...
CENTRAL COLUMNS SEVERED

Videos of the North Tower collapse show its communication mast falling first, indicating that the central support columns must have failed at the very beginning of the collapse. Loizeaux told AFP, "Everything went simultaneously."

"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

You spoke so highly of Controlled Demolitions INC, so perhaps their credibility again comes into question as by the statements made by Mark Lorieux of Controlled Demolition, they also confirmed the molten steel.
Molten steel.

There was no fire in WTC hot enough to melt steel... Here's a picture on this page of what was according to the official reports the hotest area of the inferno...

www.911-strike.com...
Cool temperatures in the collision zone were also confirmed by an audiotape indicating that firefighters reached the area of the crash damage in the South Tower, and reported survivable temperatures there. Relatively hot conditions may have existed in smoldering fires higher in the towers, but would not have created synergistic effects with the collision damage to create an overall weakened condition sufficient to create a collapse.

Just on a side note, I do some glassblowing, and I use steel rods at 1800 to 2800 degrees all day long, haven't melted a rod yet.

Why did Marvin Bush's security company pull the bomb sniffing dogs out of the building that weekend Roark, despite an 'elevated threat level'? Perhaps they needed grooming? Was it the same weekend of the UNPRECEDENTED power down? Security systems were included in the power down by the way, already discussed that here as well.

Twitchy, Twitchy, Twitchy.

You are very silly sometimes.

Originally posted by twitchy
Note the word BEFORE in the following...

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

Arthur Lerner-Lam never said that the spikes occurred before the collapse, Christopher Bollyn did. Bollyn is NOT an expert on seismology!!!

In fact, Arthur Lerner-Lam has stated:

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

In the matter of interpeting seismic charts, I'd believe Lerner-Lam over Bollyn, whose bias is legendary.








[edit on 1-6-2005 by HowardRoark]

Your coveted Lerner-Lam also said...

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

He must have gotten a visit from somebody since that first statement eh?

Originally posted by twitchy

"At 10:29 the entire top section of the North Tower had been severed from the base and began falling down," Hufschmid writes. "If the first event was the falling of a floor, how did that progress to the severing of hundreds of columns?"

Maybe Hufschmid should do a little research to understand how structures fail.

Or maybe you could do it, then you could contact him and explain how it works.


He could learn about progressive collapse.

He could read through some of the papers presented here for a better understanding of structural collapse mechanisms.

Originally posted by twitchy
Your coveted Lerner-Lam also said...

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

He must have gotten a visit from somebody since that first statement eh?

it is more likely that Bollyn took the statements out of context as he is wont to do.

Bollyn has NO journalistic credibility whatsoever.

Why don't you look at the 30 second graph yourself. This is the spike you keep talking about. Why do you refuse to understand this simple fact?

It can be found in figure 4 of this report (PDF file).

Originally posted by HowardRoark



He could learn about progressive collapse.

Seems like a whole new scientific theory is postulated on the 8.something second collapse of the WTC 1 and 2
Pretty good science we're supposed to learn
A. Idiot

I went over this before. The dust and debris that fell outside the building envelope as the building collapsed fell in a free fall, BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. That same dust obscured the the progress of the fall of the main structure of the building so that it is totally impossible to accurately determine just how long it took this portion to fall. You say it took 8 seconds, can you prove it didn't take 12 or 14?

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by HowardRoark



He could learn about progressive collapse.

Seems like a whole new scientific theory is postulated on the 8.something second collapse of the WTC 1 and 2
Pretty good science we're supposed to learn
A. Idiot

This isn't a "whole new scientific theory". This has been discussed in other threads here on ATS to try to explain to people who have not considered the dynamics involved in the collapse of either of the WTC towers. If you decimate the 70th, 80th, 90th floor of a 104-107 floor building, you have up to over 30 floors on top of you. After the steel supports have been weakened due to impact, and softened due to time at high temperature, they collapse. A 30 story building collapsing 10 to 12 feet vertically down will cause a seismic record...AND it will cause a progressive collapse. Because now the floor below the collapse floor has endured a collapse (i.e a dynamic impact loading) involving a 30 story building dropping 10 feet on top of it and it was already weakened due to heat at the time this happened.

This isn't rocket science. And though many involved in this discussion may not have an engineering degree, I find it hard to believe that these concepts can't be understood from a simple common sense level.

Originally posted by Valhall
Because now the floor below the collapse floor has endured a collapse (i.e a dynamic impact loading) involving a 30 story building dropping 10 feet on top of it and it was already weakened due to heat at the time this happened.

This isn't rocket science. And though many involved in this discussion may not have an engineering degree, I find it hard to believe that these concepts can't be understood from a simple common sense level.

indeed.
why then, did the top part crumble first? the floors up to 78ish are the ones that are supporting the alleged big chunk which will serve as a piston with which to crumble the building. this big piston has no weight on top of it. why is it the first thing to dissolve?
the top part(spyre) was nearly flush with the compromised floors before those floors began to cascade in near free fall.
so in short. the bottom three quarters of the building were completely unaffected as the upper floors crashed down onto them. it wasn't until this big alleged piston had turned to dust that the bottom part started to fall. watch the video.