Two Issues that we can never agree on: - 911 Mysteries Part 1: Demolitions (2006) Discussion

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Some say it was plane aluminium.

Proof it was not?

The twins were built to be hit by 707s with fully loaded fuel tanks, all travelling at 600 MPH...and still stand. These were enormous buildings that were overengineered to shift heat and weight to surviving infrastructure in the event of a catastrophic collision with a Jetliner. If you believe Jets brought them down solely, then you are saying the engineers failed in their calculations.

The man that designed the towers says you are wrong.

You can see this argument spelled out in a commentary on the FEMA 911 report at 911Research. For example, here's one part of FEMA's explanation...
The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

The FEMA details:
The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

The 707 weight here is the subject of some controversy. It is close to the weight of a 707-120, perhaps a 707-220 (http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/707.html), but others say FEMA should be quoting the weight of a 320-B. That would something be in the range of 295,000 to 326,000 pounds, making it heavier than the 767-200ER craft used on 9/11.

Anyway, the response:
What evidence do we have that the designers only considered impacts by planes that were flying close to stall speed (the stall speed, is the speed below which the aircraft falls out of the sky). Apparently, we only have this articles word for it. And we already know that they are quite willing to lie and exaggerate the facts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

(The commentary runs throughout the report, so follow the original link to read it if you want to see if the "lie and exaggerate the facts" comment is true).

One initial answer to this came from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC. According to his account the assumption was that the collision would be with a relatively slow-moving 707, lost in fog:
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
The full document includes a graphic indicating the 707 impact speed was indeed estimated to be 290 km/h (around 180 mph), which compares with “flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact” for the 9/11 attacks.

This account later appeared to be contradicted by NIST, however...
The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

The level of disagreement between the Port Authority and Robertson on this point is revealed in a further article.

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf
Note that according to this, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Rather, Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to assess what the results of impact might be.

Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

And even the later documents reported by NIST apparently left the issue open to question.

Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.

"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

And of course this matters, because the towers did withstand the impact: it’s claimed that the combination of that damage and the resulting fires is what brought them down.

What is clear from Robertson, at least, is that he believes the "robustness of the towers was exemplary", and that "the fact that the structures stood long enough for tens of thousands to escape is a tribute to the many talented men and women who spent endless hours toiling over the design and construction of the project". That is, he appears to be saying the towers performed better than expected, not worse.

Tinfoil_Hat_Man - Why....oh why you morons defer to 'experts' is anyone's guess.

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

you dont need to cut and paste all that.

Here a study was done that showed the Towers could resist a 600MPH 707 impact with full fuel load:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=leslie_robertson

And the proof that the lengendary molten metal was not plane aluminum? Well let's confine the talk to what was seen on video coming out of the South Tower and not discuss FEMAs melted swiss cheese structural steel.

1. Molten aluminum will flow while still grey in daylight conditions. It will not wait until it is hot enough to glow to start flowing. What came out of the South Tower on video was most likely structural Iron.

2. Plane aluminum cannot account for the molten metal under building seven.

case closed.

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

you dont need to cut and paste all that.

Here a study was done that showed the Towers could resist a 600MPH 707 impact with full fuel load:

They did, I take it you can't read.

Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:.

1. Molten aluminum will flow while still grey in daylight conditions. It will not wait until it is hot enough to glow to start flowing. What came out of the South Tower on video was most likely structural Iron.

WHAT, They put thermite on one support in one tower to bring them both down, RIGHT WHERE THE PLANE HIT?

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a halt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catcher's mitt.

http://www.debunking911.com/debris.jpg

Plane aluminum cannot account for the molten metal under building seven.

There are many other sources of aluminum than just a plane, you do the math.

CASE CLOSED!

Tinfoil_Hat_Man - Why....oh why you morons defer to 'experts' is anyone's guess.

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

hey shake, this quote from Lesie before he goes into his WTC exposition is real telling:

"The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone. So I will simply state matters of fact"

Right there is he saying he doesnt understand what the hell happened. Maybe it's outside of his expertise. I've heard him discuss with Dr Jones. He [Leslie] admitted that he hasnt even done the math on inertia to determine how fast the towers should've fallen given the resistance of each floor. Leslie was the lead engineer, but he wasn't the only engineer. He had a job and he did it well. But his job wasn't to know everything about the WTC. That was a collective effort. The other link I provided showed that according to the POrt Authorities scientific study, the WTC was judged to be able to take a 600 MPH hit from a 707 with 100% full fuel tanks. The 767s were a bit larger, but didnt have anything near full tanks. Moreover, when you look at the NIST WTC study, youll see that even there most severe collapse scenario only causes "global failure" in one tower, but not the other. Beyond "global failure" they dont venture, because then theyll have to actually explain away how the two buildings appeared to evaporate straight down at nearly free fall speed, like two trick cigars that vanish before you can smoke em.

Now, you wrote:

"WHAT, They put thermite on one support in one tower to bring them both down, RIGHT WHERE THE PLANE HIT?

Check this out Brah...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272

Pretty shocking eh? Not as shocking as WTC 1993.

They couldve killed 100K.

You also wrote (unfortunately)...

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

And Dr Jones has done testing on adding combustibles and organics to aluminum and no is doesnt change into a lavalike appearance almost whitehot like we all saw from building 2.

Q. Are you a dual citizenship Likudnik?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Kevin Ryan LOL, The man that was fired for lying about 9/11.

I've heard him discuss with Dr Jones. He [Leslie] admitted that he hasnt even done the math on inertia to determine how fast the towers should've fallen given the resistance of each floor. Leslie was the lead engineer, but he wasn't the only engineer.

Beyond "global failure" they dont venture, because then theyll have to actually explain away how the two buildings appeared to evaporate straight down at nearly free fall speed, like two trick cigars that vanish before you can smoke em.

You need more than GLOBAL FAILURE to prove GLOBAL FAILURE. No it was not freefall and not they did no evaporate.

Wrong, He designed them, he did not run every disaster scenario. AND WHEN WAS HE TALKING TO JONES, LINK!

And Dr Jones has done testing on adding combustibles and organics to aluminum and no is doesnt change into a lavalike appearance almost whitehot like we all saw from building 2.

Did he add the same material in the same amounts or did he just fake it like his peer review at BYU which is why he was forced out.

Tinfoil_Hat_Man - Why....oh why you morons defer to 'experts' is anyone's guess.

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

The other link I provided showed that according to the POrt Authorities scientific study, the WTC was judged to be able to take a 600 MPH hit from a 707 with 100% full fuel tanks.

BS: They were questioning Robertsons study and he says they were wrong, show me the actual PORT AUTHORITY STUDY!

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

The twins were built to be hit by 707s with fully loaded fuel tanks, all travelling at 600 MPH...and still stand. These were enormous buildings that were overengineered to shift heat and weight to surviving infrastructure in the event of a catastrophic collision with a Jetliner. If you believe Jets brought them down solely, then you are saying the engineers failed in their calculations.

The man that designed the towers says you are wrong.

You can see this argument spelled out in a commentary on the FEMA 911 report at 911Research. For example, here's one part of FEMA's explanation...
The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

The FEMA details:
The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

The 707 weight here is the subject of some controversy. It is close to the weight of a 707-120, perhaps a 707-220 (http://www.aviation-history.com/boeing/707.html), but others say FEMA should be quoting the weight of a 320-B. That would something be in the range of 295,000 to 326,000 pounds, making it heavier than the 767-200ER craft used on 9/11.

Anyway, the response:
What evidence do we have that the designers only considered impacts by planes that were flying close to stall speed (the stall speed, is the speed below which the aircraft falls out of the sky). Apparently, we only have this articles word for it. And we already know that they are quite willing to lie and exaggerate the facts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

(The commentary runs throughout the report, so follow the original link to read it if you want to see if the "lie and exaggerate the facts" comment is true).

One initial answer to this came from Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the WTC. According to his account the assumption was that the collision would be with a relatively slow-moving 707, lost in fog:
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
The full document includes a graphic indicating the 707 impact speed was indeed estimated to be 290 km/h (around 180 mph), which compares with “flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact” for the 9/11 attacks.

This account later appeared to be contradicted by NIST, however...
The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

The level of disagreement between the Port Authority and Robertson on this point is revealed in a further article.

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study. But the Port Authority, eager to mount a counterattack against Wien, seized on the results -- and may in fact have exaggerated them. One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour. That was perhaps three times the speed that Robertson had considered. If Robertson saw the article in the paper, he never spoke up about the discrepancy. No one else issued a correction, and the question was answered in many people's minds: the towers were as safe as could be expected, even in the most cataclysmic of circumstances.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later. The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had. And if Wien was the trade center's Cassandra, fire protection would become its Achilles' heel.

http://scott-juris.blogspot.com/The%20Height%20of%20Ambition%20Part%20Four.pdf
Note that according to this, the towers were not specifically designed to survive the impact from a plane. Rather, Robertson carried out some calculations on the existing design to assess what the results of impact might be.

Further, whatever the truth about the speed of the plane, there’s no indication that the design considered the effects of the fire. Leslie Robertson says the towers were not designed to handle it:.

To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

And even the later documents reported by NIST apparently left the issue open to question.

Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.

"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?ei=5007&en=a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

And of course this matters, because the towers did withstand the impact: it’s claimed that the combination of that damage and the resulting fires is what brought them down.

What is clear from Robertson, at least, is that he believes the "robustness of the towers was exemplary", and that "the fact that the structures stood long enough for tens of thousands to escape is a tribute to the many talented men and women who spent endless hours toiling over the design and construction of the project". That is, he appears to be saying the towers performed better than expected, not worse.

Tinfoil_Hat_Man - Why....oh why you morons defer to 'experts' is anyone's guess.

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

I'll be terse.

Your "little" post is sprinkled with quotes from Leslie R and then you add in your own commentary...all in the same blue highlight, as if Leslie said it. Hogwash.

You're also admitting that there is a big discrepancy in what the Port Authority says versus what Leslie says post-911. Who's telling the Truth? You are insinuating that the Port Authority is being dishonest and Leslie is telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. But wouldnt that make you a Tin Foil k00k? You are going against the Port Authority's good word. Are you a twoofah now? You believe the P.A. has a CONSPIRACY about the 600 MPH study? That's retarded. And even Leslie admits he DOESNT understand WTF happened to the WTC.

again, are you a dual citizenship Likudnik? What's your interest in stifling debate and inquiry in these United States of Free Speech?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

You're also admitting that there is a big discrepancy in what the Port Authority says versus what Leslie says post-911. Who's telling the Truth? You are insinuating that the Port Authority is being dishonest and Leslie is telling the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth

He wrote the report and designed the towers, he was the head of the entire project. Who am I going to beleive, the man who wrote the report and did the consultations or someone that read it.

What a moron, lets go with someone that read it in a hour over someone that spent endless days on calculations and composition of the report.

Tinfoil_Hat_Man - Why....oh why you morons defer to 'experts' is anyone's guess.

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

lol, haha, so how many citizenship's do you hold?

What's your affiliation, my little nazi hunter?

reply

[–] spins 16 years ago

1. Molten Metal

There shouldnt have been ANY, and there was.

Why shouldn't there have been any? Are you trying to say that a 500,000+ ton debris pile (a good percentage of which is hydrocarbon based) that is on fire wouldn't be hot enough in pockets to melt metal?

Some say it was plane aluminium.

Yes it could have been aluminum but that doesn't mean it was all from the planes. For example the facade of the Twin Towers was aluminum which would have been a major source if this is true.

That metal went somewhere. FEMA even says some of it actually EVAPORATED.

Did they, can you provide a quote? Here is the link to the report...
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

2. The robustness of the Towers

The twins were built to be hit by 707s with fully loaded fuel tanks, all travelling at 600 MPH...and still stand.

Yes the robustness of the towers was exemplary, both buildings managed to survive the plane impacts and remain standing for a significant amount of time saving thousands of lives. The energy invloved in the 767 impacts was far greater than had been contemplated in the design.

Yes the Twin Towers were designed with an airplane impact in mind, it was that of a slow-flying Boeing 707 (the largest airliner of the time) lost in the fog and seeking a landing field, thus presumably low on fuel.

Leslie Robertson said nothing about a speed of 600mph or fully laden with fuel, in fact as far as I'm aware the fuel was never considered, you are just parroting the lies of the 9/11 truth movement.

Do you ever question the validity of the assertions made on these 9/11 conspiracy websites or always assume they are fact?

What does Leslie Robertson have to say about this now?

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

The evaporated steel isn't the issue so much as molten structural steel is. It is a fact that FEMA stands behind both realities however. The only proofs that are presently at my fingertips however is the proof of molten STEEL [not just aluminum] given by the Fema building performance study. Btw, I never said the Fema/Evaporated steel quote came from THAT report. Only that Fema said it somewhere. Official Theory devotees deny the existence of molten Iron/Steel. The Fema reports lays that to rest. So do statements made by authorities like M Louzeau, the owner of Controlled Demolition Inc who was at ground zero during cleanup.

And no, 500,000 ton debris pile, one million ton debris pile, isnt melting steel down like a foundry. Sorry. Show a precedent for that. Molten metal under three buildings? Aluminum you say? What was the metal under 7? Aluminum? Sorry, no plane there, try again.

Yes, you and masterFake are right. The Towers were only built to withstand the slow moving (relatively slow) 707 lost in the fog. The 600 MPH 767 stamp of approval came from the POrt Authority study on the Towers...to be exact. So it was the PA who said the Towers were robust enough.

Leslie Robertson is somewhat of a liar. He claimed there was molten metal early on, then he denied ever saying that probably during a debate with Dr Jones.

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

So do statements made by authorities like M Louzeau, the owner of Controlled Demolition Inc who was at ground zero during cleanup.

Think again!

-----------------------

I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site. It was reported to me by contractors we had been working with. Molten steel was encountered primarily during excavation of debris around the South Tower when large hydraulic excavators were digging trenches 2 to 4 meters deep into the compacted/burning debris pile. There are both video tape and still photos of the molten steel being "dipped" out by the buckets of excavators. I'm not sure where you can get a copy.

Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation.

Regards,
==========================

Mark Loizeaux, President
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.
2737 Merryman's Mill Road
Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131
Tel: 1-410-667-6610
Fax: 1-410-667-6624
www.controlled-demolition.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/dfef90067070254e?dmode=source

------------------------

Aluminum you say? What was the metal under 7? Aluminum? Sorry, no plane there, try again.

You are a bit retarded, you think only planes are made of aluminum?

Leslie Robertson is somewhat of a liar. He claimed there was molten metal early on, then he denied ever saying that probably during a debate with Dr Jones.

No, Jones got let go for faking a peer review. Link any such claim by Robertson.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

UPDATE:

Here's your FEMA official, Dr Jonathan Barnett, who was a member of the FEMA WTc Investigative team. Here he is QUOTED as mentioning the evaporated steel members.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=jonathan_barnett

great replies
nice tries
open your eyes

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Here's your FEMA official, Dr Jonathan Barnett, who was a member of the FEMA WTc Investigative team. Here he is QUOTED as mentioning the evaporated steel members.

Yea, That is some evidence, he is not even sure.

And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

hey masterfake,
if the structural steel didnt evaporate,
then where t f did it go?
Up your arse?
Do you know what intergranular melting is?
Can you spell swiss cheese?
And you still believe in this aluminum molten metal crock'o'shyt?

Can't you see how stoopid you are?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Children, he clearly does not say it evaporate but had the appearance it did, tell me what science said happened to it and there is your answer. Grasping at straws.

And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.

Can't you see how stoopid you are?

That when a person says "debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated" the conclusion to what happened is still up in the air.

Does appear mean it was as you conclude? That's stoopid!

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

No, what's schtoopid is you thinking that structural steel I beams (girders and such) could possibly sport HOLES like swiss cheese, and be twisted like pretzels without even cracking, and yet you still *believe* that there was no molten steel.

Is that what you *believe* masterfake?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

No, what's schtoopid is you thinking that structural steel I beams (girders and such) could possibly sport HOLES like swiss cheese, and be twisted like pretzels without even cracking, and yet you still *believe* that there was no molten steel.

It never says they were...........

And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.

EVEN if there was MOLTEN METAL MONTHS LATTER was does that prove or have you not thought that far into your claim?

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

It never says they were...........

And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.

Sorry for calling you idiot. But you provoked me. Only a pure idiot can think that you can have missing areas of structural steel and that there was no melting that could take place. Do you think steel can evaporate or even appear to evaporate without melting first? Go from solid to gas and skip liquid? What thermate can do that?

Can you see why I called you an idiot before?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

And Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a member of FEMA’s WTC investigation team, will describe steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extremely high temperatures.

Sorry for calling you idiot. But you provoked me. Only a pure idiot can think that you can have missing areas of structural steel and that there was no melting that could take place. Do you think steel can evaporate or even appear to evaporate without melting first? Go from solid to gas and skip liquid? What thermate can do that?

It says appear, and sure, who knows, the author of the statement does not or he would not have used the word appears. Clearly in you mind appear means was. That's the conclusion of a idiot. Simple answer... EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron.

Are you claiming thermate? LOL!

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

Hey idiot. Ooops sorry. For some reason I just cant help myself when it comes to you. Are you claiming that structural steel can sport holes, gaps, missing areas, and NOT have melted? Try to keep it in your tiny head that the original debate is about molten steel...not iron vapor.

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Hey idiot. Ooops sorry. For some reason I just cant help myself when it comes to you. Are you claiming that structural steel can sport holes, gaps, missing areas, and NOT have melted? Try to keep it in your tiny head that the original debate is about molten steel...not iron vapor.

Even though "APPEARS" means "WAS" in retardland, here ya go.

-------------------------------

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

iron and steam could have reacted in this way and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

hey fake, your little chemical diatribe is fascinating. But please, do explain oh all knowing one, how you get lava pouring out of tower 2 from just Iron and Steam, as you phrase it. You're trying to explain away the high temperature corrosion with a simple steam and Iron explaination. First of all, where do you get Iron from? You need to get the Iron OUT of the steel, fake, first. How do you do this with steam and water and all the little pettiness you cite here. Fake, you need thermites. You need thermites fake, if you want to get the Iron OUT of the structural steel. You need thermites fakery. See how easily you decieved yourself? Now you must explain, under IMDB peer review of course, how in the hell you get Iron in the first place. And then try, try as best you can fake, to explain how WATER HEAT and STRUCTURAL STEEL becomes a torrent of LAVA shooting out of the 81st floor of the WTC, tons of it. And you think you are smarter than Mr Steven Jones?

LOL

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Good morning tin foil hat retard.

hey fake, your little chemical diatribe is fascinating. But please, do explain oh all knowing one, how you get lava pouring out of tower 2 from just Iron and Steam, as you phrase it.

The question was the metal that APPEARED to have melted. You are changing the subject.

You're trying to explain away the high temperature corrosion with a simple steam and Iron explaination. First of all, where do you get Iron from? You need to get the Iron OUT of the steel, fake, first. How do you do this with steam and water and all the little pettiness you cite here.

Are you 15, You don't get it out, it corrodes in place. Iron is the basic material of steel, and all steel contains iron.
http://reference.howstuffworks.com/iron-and-steel-encyclopedia.htm
Are you freekin' 12 years old.

Fake, you need thermites. You need thermites fake, if you want to get the Iron OUT of the structural steel. You need thermites fakery. See how easily you decieved yourself?

What retard, Because you say so.

Now you must explain, under IMDB peer review of course, how in the hell you get Iron in the first place.

Once again Retard....

Iron is the basic material of steel, and all steel contains iron.
http://reference.howstuffworks.com/iron-and-steel-encyclopedia.htm

And then try, try as best you can fake, to explain how WATER HEAT and STRUCTURAL STEEL becomes a torrent of LAVA shooting out of the 81st floor of the WTC, tons of it. And you think you are smarter than Mr Steven Jones?

PROVE IT WAS STEEL AND NOT ALUMINUM! You can't. Quit spanking your monkey and pick up a book.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

The question was the metal that APPEARED to have melted. You are changing the subject.

no babybrains, you are.

"Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1000C (1800F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of Iron, Oxygen, and Sulfur THAT LIQUIFIED THE STEEL."*

-FEMA on the steel girders studied from WTC7*

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular MELTING (MELTING YOU IDIOT!) was readily visible in the near surface microstructure. Aliquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam appraoched 1000C (1800F), which is substantially lower than what would be expected for MELTING (MELTING! U F(_)kin @$$B(_)CKET!) this steel."*

-FEMA on a steel support beam from either tower one or two. They are unsure which.*

So, ummmm, explain to us fourth graders one more time how you can take some water and steam and hot iron and create an 1800 degree hot eutectic that will eat away at steel girders like drano.

Can your exothermic b(_)LLshyt create a mixture of liquid iron that will chew through steel? No dumdum, it cant, and you cant.

Dismissed FAKE.

And fema is claiming molten steel too, B0B0.

* http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

WHO do you work 4?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intragranular MELTING (MELTING YOU IDIOT!) was readily visible in the near surface microstructure.

Thank you for proving me right, the oxidation caused the melting as I said above. You are self debunking, you might look up the word subsequent.

What a child, 20 posts latter and you say the same thing that I did above long ago (and below) and you don't even know it, boy U Dum!

-------------------------------

Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!

The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.

iron and steam could have reacted in this way and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!

Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!

(Gypsum = drywall child!)

Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!

In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.

In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.

I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.

Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.

The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.

It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.

Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.

ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:

METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

And fema is claiming molten steel too,

Not really in any traditional sense, it's more of a chemical reaction speed up by heat, they are not saying at all it melted like a candle. They don't explain this on the teletubbies, you may understand it when you hit your teen years.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] FentheRed 16 years ago

The exterior of the Towers was also plated in aluminum. Plane aluminum is not necessarily the only factor. (9/11 Mysteries, 17:10)

Feeling Shifty?
http://www.fenrisdesigns.com

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

Hi Fen. Let's not get confused. We have people here who are trying their utmost damndest to downplay the live footage of lava shooting out of the South Tower. They are trying to claim that any molten materials were aluminum. And with contradiction, they are now claiming that raw Iron and steam can account for the eutectic reactions....without first explaining where the raw Iron came from. Funny they call CTists tin foil hat wearers when they are really the ones obsessed with ALUMINUM.

Tell me aluminum helmets, was Building Seven made of Aluminum too>?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

And with contradiction, they are now claiming that raw Iron and steam can account for the eutectic reactions....without first explaining where the raw Iron came from.

LOL!

Iron is the basic material of steel, and all steel contains iron.
http://reference.howstuffworks.com/iron-and-steel-encyclopedia.htm

Tell me aluminum helmets, was Building Seven made of Aluminum too

There was Aluminum all over the place in WTC7 show me a modern occupied building that is not full of it?

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

you can LOL all you want to fake, but the truth remains. Noone is buying the sack of bullchips you are selling about structural steel that if it's heated and hit with water, will automatically change to eutectic corrosion, intragranular melting (swiss cheese appearance), thinning of members, and apparent evaporated areas (implying that melting took place at a minimum to account for the missing steel, steel, not Iron). And another thing, little fake, water isn't pulling the Iron OUT of Steel. If you are asserting that then you really have been wearing that aluminum helmet too too long.

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

And another thing, little fake, water isn't pulling the Iron OUT of Steel.

Little boy, does steel rust?

# Any of various powdery or scaly reddish-brown or reddish-yellow hydrated ferric oxides formed on iron and iron-containing materials by low-temperature oxidation in the presence of water.

Did they need to pull the Iron out of the steel, no? So what about high temperature oxidation in the presence of water, they suddenly need to pull the Iron out? (Answer, no they don't, prove your claim that one needs to pull the Iron out, LOL)

What a freekin halfwit.

ANOTHER THING SPARKY, YOUR EXPERT CONCLUDES STEEL APPEARS TO BE MELTED, YOU CLAIM THAT MEANS IT WAS MELTED. YOU EXPERT DOES NOT STATE THAT AT ALL. IT HAS THAT APPEARANCE.

Damn you is a quarter-wit, show me one scientific test that demonstrates that there was any melted steel anywhere in WTC 1,2 or 7 or go back to watching the Teletubbies.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Thanks for proving my point even with your short attention span. You just became a debunker. The Iron in steel rusts without needing to be removed!

Good Job!

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

So how much cash are you willing for a pic of my a$$?

Nothing, you could rip me off Emo Boy, It could be your face and there are no test known to man to distinguish the two.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

the bottom line fake, the bottom linem is you are denying the existence of molten structural members at the WTC. You are attributing a high temperature corrosive attack (far higher than any WTC fires BTW) to just steel and steam and drywall. Sorry dumbass but if you mix those three together you don't get a high temperature corrosion as per FEMA. This corrosion wasn't just rust. It ATE AWAY at the structural steel. And you certainly don't get LAVA shooting out of the 81st floor of Tower 2.

ps: you're an idiot

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

It's LAVA now, science can be your friend.

Sorry dumbass but if you mix those three together you don't get a high temperature corrosion as per FEMA.

The boy that can't read, the temperature came from the fire, see why every word is important. It's not a rust reaction because of the temperature. I might have to get crayons and explain it to you with stick men. What a moron.

show me one test that scientifically proved their was molten steel.

Crickets.....................

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

hey bobo, I wasnt saying it was rust you were talking about. I was implying that your little drywall, water, steam, and iron diatribe is pathetic at best at explaining the "high temperature" (1800F) "eutectic" corrosion which ate away at structural steel as per FEMA. I'm sorry little idiot, but spraying fire engine water on some hot but not nearly molten steel will not produce what was found under all three buildings. K bobo?

Your Iron exothermic reactions aren't creating and making up for all the heat you and no other aluminum helmet bunker can attempt to lie about.

Now, tell us all. Who do you work for bobo?

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Actually it does, what is the O's in HO2? Hum? Sort of like feeding a torch Oxygen, it burns hotter, Oh, I am sorry, that's science, I'm sure you are confused.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Emo, How much are you getting paid to get everything wrong, hijackers not on the manifests, LOL.

When should I start on the script?

PS: Alex Jones is a fruitcake.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

fakery, link us to flight manifests that show the muslim names of the "hijacker" patsies.

Better yet, you worthless bucket of whore, show us all where flight 11 and 77 were even scheduled to fly that day.

WHO are you shilling 4, you bucket of slut.

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

fakery, link us to flight manifests that show the muslim names of the "hijacker" patsies.

Right here tard, FROM A 9/11 TRUTH SITE no less. Have your mommy read it to you.

show us all where flight 11 and 77 were even scheduled to fly that day.

Uhhh.. They just make manifests for the planes at random for penmanship competitions, LOL.

WHO are you shilling 4, you bucket of slut.

Your mom!

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply

[–] alfa3647 16 years ago

Good work, you worthless bucket of sLut, but if this were an exam, you'd get a 50 and fail. You still cannot prove 11 and 77 were scheduled to fly that day.

The connection and relevance here is Cheney's WarGames! This link shows that we have ghost flights that were "off the books" going on, which crashed into the buildings!

Now read and learn, you aluminum helmet wearing, special ed challenged, short bus ridin, idiot...

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm

reply

[–] MasterShake_2015 16 years ago

Good work, you worthless bucket of sLut, but if this were an exam, you'd get a 50 and fail. You still cannot prove 11 and 77 were scheduled to fly that day.

I'm your mom in a bucket, sounds like a KFC special. Yes, They just issue detailed passenger manifests for madcap random fun.

Trubl_Makr - Attention CBS: Bring back Walker, Texas Ranger! WTR is my favourite show

reply