You think fires can bring down Towers?? Think again?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Fred Dibnah regularly demolished structures - including industrial chimneys (used to heat, you might think) using fire.

The structures you are talking about were built of Bricks and Mortar - mainly in the 1800s.
late 1900s steel structure buildings are a different issue altogether.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The book did not mention the pools, and the fire can sure weaken steel but it cannot in anyway melt the steel, that requires a blast furnace.

That's why it was Aluminum, not steel.

HUMPTY DUMPTY WAS PUSHED...www.PressForDumptyTruth.org

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yeah steel and brick are very different, one thing about this movie I had not seen previously were the red pools of steel seen dropping out of the building, and also as described by ground crews later on. This subject has often not been covered, it was not discussed by popular mechanics, the paperback version printed recently blew, it did not give a fair evaluation at all and lots of the data comes from an unreliable source to us CTist's, the 9/11 commission. The book did not mention the pools, and the fire can sure weaken steel but it cannot in anyway melt the steel, that requires a blast furnace. This movie was very well done and the Screw films are just biased propaganda from the right.

the whole thing has the signiture of thermite/thermate being used - (as pointed out by Prof Steven Jones)an important chatcateristic of which is the fact it doesn't need oxegen to continue to burn. so it would explain how the iron remains molten for long after the attack.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Yeah steel and brick are very different, one thing about this movie I had not seen previously were the red pools of steel seen dropping out of the building, and also as described by ground crews later on. This subject has often not been covered, it was not discussed by popular mechanics, the paperback version printed recently blew, it did not give a fair evaluation at all and lots of the data comes from an unreliable source to us CTist's, the 9/11 commission.

What makes you think the metal flowing from the corner of WTC 2 is steel? I'd like you to backup that false assertion with evidence because I have only ever heard 9/11 conspiracy theorists say it's steel! NIST and other researchers have suggested it was aluminum from the facade and or Flight 175. Dr. Frank Greening has also given us a plausible explanation of what may have caused fires to flare-up in the NE corner of WTC 2 prior to the collapse, significantly increasing the temperatures in that area…

Based on the calculated trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2, the forward cabin area of the aircraft ploughed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building. Thus the 3200-liter oxygen cylinder carried in the crew compartment of Flight 175 came to rest precisely in the area where the bright yellow glow was to later appear. As many videos show, about 50 minutes after impact, fires were well established in localized areas of the northeast corner of WTC 2 – these fires would have gradually heated the entire forward fuselage to temperatures in excess of 200°C. We therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires.

...this quote by Dr. Greening was taken out-of-context by none other than Dr. Steven Jones recently...

F. Greening's latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the ogygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC 2. Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e. this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F - while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel.......(etc)

...here is Dr. Greening's reply to Jones, why don't you read it and learn something...

Dear Dr. Jones,

First of all let me re-emphasize that I do NOT mention molten steel in the addendum to my aluminum article. The addendum is on the topic of oxygen enhanced fires in WTC 2. And I believe that what I wrote on that topic should be very clear to anyone who actually reads it!

That is why I am questioning your attribution of the formation of "molten steel" in WTC 2 to anything I said in my article. And why I am particularly objecting to you saying: "This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he (i.e. Greening), suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building...."

Where do I suggest this?

So, let's go over what I wrote one more time and see if you will finally acknowledge your misrepresentation of my hypothesis.

This hypothesis is an attempt to explain the flare-up of the fires in WTC 2 prior to its collapse as exemplified by the phrase "intense yellow glow."

I think we can at least agree that there was something glowing with a bright yellow color INSIDE WTC 2 in the minutes before its collapse.

I see this glow as evidence of a high temperature, oxygen-rich, fire. That is all!

Now if you wish to argue that such a yellow glow is due to molten steel, that is YOUR opinion NOT MINE. Obviously you can say that YOU think the yellow glow is coming from molten steel, and yet you falsely attribute such an idea to me as if this was stated by me in my article.

This is clearly a serious misrepresentation on your part and I urge you to issue an apology for this and to retract or correct your paper.

If you care to re-read my "Oxygen Enhanced Fires" addendum you will have to agree that I say NOTHING, either directly or indirectly, about molten steel.

In fact, any OBJECTIVE reading of my addendum shows that I am postulating that on board oxygen cylinders and oxygen generators would have eventually been heated to beyond their known upper temperature limits. At this point they would have failed and rapidly discharged their contents into the pre-existing fires that we see burning at the NE corner of the 80th to 82nd floors of WTC 2.

I think, even though you are NOT a chemist (I am!), you are probably familiar with the effects of adding pure oxygen to a pre-existing fire!

Now since I am postulating that these sources of PURE oxygen were INSIDE the fuselage of the Boeing 767, and the fires we see on the 80th to 82nd floors of WTC 2 are in the area where the aircraft is presumed to have come to rest, it follows that at least some of the observed fires were burning INSIDE the aircraft wreckage.

By way of support for this suggestion let me note the following information on the fate of Flights 11 and 175 which can be found in the NIST Report on WTC 1 & 2: NIST have analyzed the trajectories of the impacting aircraft and conclude that over 90% of the aircraft debris from Flight AA 11 (excluding fuel) remained in WTC 1 after impact, and 72% of Flight UA 175 debris (excluding fuel) remained in WTC 2 after the impact. More specifically, NIST estimate that 75,500kg of aircraft debris came to rest on floors 93, 94, 95 and 96 in the case of WTC 1 and 59,500kg of debris lodged on floors 79, 80, 81 and 82 of WTC 2.

It follows that, quite apart from the jet fuel, there were plenty of combusible materials inside the aircraft including, plastic mouldings, electrical insulation, luggage, carpeting, upholstery, and regrettably the passengers themselves, located close to the NE corner of floors 80-82 of WTC 2. In addition, it is also very probable that furniture and other combustible items on the impacted floors of WTC 2 were "ploughed" into the NE corner of the building by the impacting aircraft and provided additional fuel to the fires.

After 50 minutes of burning it is quite possible that the fires in WTC 2 were waning and becoming oxygen starved. However prolonged heating of the on-board oxygen cylinders would eventually burst the rupture discs and we now have a new source of PURE OXYGEN. This would stimulate the pre-existing fires and generate very high temperatures.

So here is what I actually say in my article:

"NIST report that the Boeing 767s involved in the 9-11 impacts on the WTC Towers carried about 100 canisters per aircraft; each canister capable of 12-minute oxygen generation for a total of 5000 liters of O2 per aircraft; the canisters were located in compartments above the passenger seats. Researcher D. Blake, in a study of the response of aircraft oxygen generators to elevated temperatures, (See report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/35), found that the lowest temperature for self-activation of a generator canister was 315°C. Other tests conducted by Blake showed that more than 80% of generator canisters heated to 370°C activated during an hour of heating.

Based on the experimental data presented above it appears quite probable that a significant portion of the oxygen carried by the two aircraft that hit the Twin Towers was released prior to the collapse of these buildings. Experimental data also show that gas cylinders undergo acute release of oxygen at much lower temperatures than the chemical generators onboard the aircraft. Furthermore, the chemical generators release oxygen in 50-liter increments involving many locations in the aircraft cabin, while the bottled gas supply would be released in one 3200-liter pulse at the front-end of the aircraft fuselage where the cylinder is wall-mounted.

In one of the tests described by Marker, 600 liters of oxygen was released into a cargo container where a small fire had been deliberately set. The initial discharge of oxygen caused a very violent combustion reaction that ripped open, and subsequently destroyed, the container. Other data from fire tests in oxygen-enriched environments show that cellulose-based materials such as wood, cardboard and paper, burn almost four times faster in air enriched to 40 vol% O2. This increased combustion rate induces a comparable increase in the heat flux from the burning material and results in flame temperatures as much as 600°C higher than the flame for the same material burning in air - thus flame temperatures up to 1500°C are possible."

So that is my suggestion for the flare-up of the WTC 2 fires. (This probably also happened in WTC 1 but well inside the building, out of view from the outside, since the aircraft hit the middle of this tower).

You ask what was burning with a yellow glow at this point?

Well, I have already answered that!

And as for the molten metal that was seen flowing from WTC 2?

I do not discuss this at all in my addendum, but NIST and other researchers have suggested it was aluminum....

Dr. F. R. Greening

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73169

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The book did not mention the pools, and the fire can sure weaken steel but it cannot in anyway melt the steel, that requires a blast furnace.

Good, I'm glad we agree on that because that's all that was required to finally bring down the WTC. Here are a couple of quotes from the NIST FAQ, bolding mine...

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

This movie was very well done and the Screw films are just biased propaganda from the right.

Jeez, is everything in your worldview so black-and-white, you really are simple minded. "Screw Loose Change" and "Screw 9/11 Mysteries" were both put together by members of the JREF forum. If you think they are just biased propaganda from the right start a new thread on the forum with that assertion, but be prepared to get flamed.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

How do you (or the eyewitnesses) know it was steel?

Ian.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I really have a hard time believing that relatively small fires brought down the Towers, and I will never believe WTC 7 fell on its own.

Small fires?

WTC7 came down with a 20 story hole in it, a three story visible bulge and totally on fire and corner damage running up to the 18th floor but lets explore shall we?

Lets look at these videos of WTC 7 first.

CREDIT TO BUNKER ON THE FIRST LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHdt7wRQtaY

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi

Stills of the whole building.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_1.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_2.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_3.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_4.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_smoke_5.html

Corner damage.
http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

The 20 Story Hole
http://www.debunking911.com/7wtc.jpg

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6186921835292416413&hl=en-CA

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3088/wtc7band300000fh6.jpg

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/310/wtc7band400000ac0.jpg

Illustrated 42 page PowerPoint style detailed report (easy read) on the damage. A must see.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Here is your fire from the firemen on scene.

Battalion Chief John Norman
Special Operations Command - 22 years

From there, we looked out at 7 World Trade Center again. You could see smoke, but no visible fire, and some damage to the south face. You couldn’t really see from where we were on the west face of the building, but at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/norman.html
Chris Boyle expands on what he saw when he viewed the south side, not just the corner.
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Another report talks of damage that suggested collapse was a real possibility:
...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF

Fire chief Daniel Nigro says further assessment of the damage indicated that it was severe:

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC Building 7]. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-634

"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt


Another fireman reported damage that progressed as the day wore on.
Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html

[Shortly after the tower collapses] I don‚t know how long this was going
on, but I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that
a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side. I
looked up at the building and I saw smoke in it, but I really didn't see any
fire at that time. Deputy ƒƒChief Nick Visconti http://tinyurl.com/paqux

A few minutes after that a police officer came up to me and told me that
the façade in front of Seven World Trade Center was gone and they thought there
was an imminent collapse of Seven World Trade Center. FDNY Lieutenant William
Melarango
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110045.PDF

I think they said they had seven to ten floors that were freestanding and
they weren't going to send anyone in. FDNY Chief Thomas McCarthy
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110055.PDF

So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn‚t look like
there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there
had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.
Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good. But they had a
hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the
street, but eventually they pulled back too.

Then we received an order from Fellini, we‚re going to make a move on 7. That
was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn‚t
look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was
no hydrant pressure. I wasn‚t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer
I‚m standing next to said, that building doesn‚t look straight. So I‚m standing
there. I‚m looking at the building. It didn‚t look right, but, well, we‚ll go
in, we‚ll see.

So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed to-
ward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandeis
came running up. He said forget it, nobody‚s going into 7, there’s creaking,
there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10
minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another
report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Vis-
conti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was aban-
doned.

Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to
the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge
hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And
so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we‚ll
head back to the command post.„ Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp


After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, re-
ported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was
with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard an-
other explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the
lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked
like hell," Jennings said.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it
was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was
kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that
corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way.
With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going
on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly
should not be. I asked another guy looking with me and he said “That
building is going to come down, we better get out of here.” So we did. –M.J.,
Employed at 45 Broadway.

So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into
Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain
Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged
on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said
we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which
we did. – FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110462.PDF


And a lot of Fuel

Fuel Tanks for generators in WTC7

275-gallon tank on 7th floor;

one 6,000-gallon tank located between low-rise elevators in east elevator shaft between 2nd and 3rd floors

Two 6,000-gallon tanks under loading dock on ground level

Two 12,000-gallon tanks under loading dock on ground level

275-gallon tank on 5th floor

Approximately 50- to 100-gallon tank under generator on 9th floor

275-gallon tank on 8th floor on west side next to exterior wall

AND HERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS

1. If this was done as a False Flag Operation, what is the significance of the relatively small in the (grand scheme of things) WTC7, If you drop the Huge WTC1 & 2 (think back to those images on TV the first time you saw them) did Bush have some mathematical formula that said the US population would not support a war in Iraq unless WTC7 was dropped also?

2. Why drop the penthouse through WTC7’s roof 5 seconds before you drop WTC7. If you are going to bring the whole thing down in five seconds why do all the work to drop the penthouse through the roof a mere five seconds earlier?



Alex Jones: Keeping fans involuntarily celibate since 1976

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I like the way you started off saying...

Im far from a full-blown conspiracy theorist about 9/11, but I do belive the government knows a hell of a lot more than what they're saying.

...then go on to say...

Also, I really have a hard time believing that relatively small fires brought down the Towers, and I will never believe WTC 7 fell on its own.

With regards to the Twin Towers you really are a loon if you think the fires were "relatively small", here is what NIST say...

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As for your comment about WTC 7 this is what the FDNY Chief of Operations, on 9/11, Daniel Nigro had to say...

The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged [WTC 7] building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building's integrity was in serious doubt.

[Fire Engineering magazine, 10/2002]

The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was [that] the collapse [of the WTC towers] had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, 7 World Trade Center collapsed completely.

...is he lying and part of the conspiracy to commit mass murder in your opinion?

reply share

add reply

formatting help