WTC Collapses

[leopold]

It's only about a page long- rest assured that I won't send you to read a 180 page document as shaman_ once did :-p. Again, from 9/11 Research:
Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers

can you please post the relevant parts here?

[scott3x]

can you please post the relevant parts here?

Sigh. All of it's relevant. If only part of it were, I would have provided the excerpt. Anyway, here's most of 9/11 Research's Thermite article:
Theories that Aluminothermic Reactions Were Used to Destroy the Twin Towers

The idea that thermite or similar preparations were used exclusively or in combination with other methods to destroy the Twin Towers remained unexamined for several years after the attack, despite its merits.

Aluminothermic reactions are exothermic chemical reactions in which aluminum is oxidized while an oxide of another metal is reduced. Although high temperatures are required to initiate such reactions, they are easily self-sustaining once started due to the heat they generate. The most common example of an aluminothermic reaction is thermite, in which powdered aluminum reacts with an iron oxide. Because aluminum has a greater affinity for oxygen than iron, oxygen is transferred from the iron oxide to the aluminum, releasing a great deal of energy and leaving behind molten iron and aluminum oxide.

Professor Steven Jones has noted that a number of features evident both before and after the falls of the Towers fit the theory that thermite was used. These include:

* A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone
* Reports of molten metal in the remarkably hot rubble of Ground Zero
* Minute solidified droplets of previously molten iron in samples of World Trade Center dust
* Remains of the Towers' structural steel showing severe corrosive attack involving sulfur
* High levels of metals found in aluminothermic incendiaries -- such as manganese, zinc, and barium -- in samples of World Trade Center dust

Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel.

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well[:]

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.

[leopold]

* A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone

actually it was only coming from one window of one corner.

Reports of molten metal in the remarkably hot rubble of Ground Zero

could have been pools of copper like someone else suggested.
define "remarkably hot".

Minute solidified droplets of previously molten iron in samples of World Trade Center dust

how were these "droplets" determined to be molten?

Remains of the Towers' structural steel showing severe corrosive attack involving sulfur

how was this determined?
who did the analysis?

High levels of metals found in aluminothermic incendiaries -- such as manganese, zinc, and barium -- in samples of World Trade Center dust

this was explained in the USGS article you linked to.
it made no mention of thermite.

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well

it also fits the interpretation by USGS quite well too.

[shaman_]

It's only about a page long- rest assured that I won't send you to read a 180 page document as shaman_ once did

You didn't know what the workstation tests were.... I pointed to you to the NIST document which explains the tests.... You refuse to acknowledge them because the document is too large.

[shaman_]

actually it was only coming from one window of one corner.

The corner near the entry of one of the planes I believe…….

could have been pools of copper like someone else suggested.

Yep. Or aluminium.

how were these "droplets" determined to be molten?

.. and how is it determined that they formed pre-collapse?

how was this determined?
who did the analysis?

J. Barnett and R.Bierderman analysed a piece of corroded steel from WTC7. They believed that temperatures around 1000C and sulfur caused the partial erosion.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

There was also an analysis of some steel from WTC1 or 2 but their estimated temperature was lower.

http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html

[scott3x]

* A spout of orange molten metal seen just before the South Tower's fall in videos of the Tower's north face around the crash zone

actually it was only coming from one window of one corner.

A corner in a face, sure. The other corners were apparently also undergoing thermitic reactions, but only white smoke was visible, not molten metal.

Reports of molten metal in the remarkably hot rubble of Ground Zero

could have been pools of copper like someone else suggested.
define "remarkably hot".

From 9/11 Research's Molten Metal article:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3

Minute solidified droplets of previously molten iron in samples of World Trade Center dust

how were these "droplets" determined to be molten?

9/11 Research's article Aluminothermic Residues quotes Steven Jones in his peer reviewed paper Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07:
The iron-rich component of the WTC dust sample was analyzed in some detail by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). Using the scanning electron microscope, we found that much of the iron-rich dust was in fact composed of roughly spherical particles * microspheres. The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information.

Iron melts at 1538ºC, so the presence of these numerous iron-rich spheres implies a very high temperature. Too hot in fact for the fires in the WTC buildings since jet fuel (kerosene), paper and wood furniture * and other office materials * cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt iron or steel.

High levels of metals found in aluminothermic incendiaries -- such as manganese, zinc, and barium -- in samples of World Trade Center dust

this was explained in the USGS article you linked to.
it made no mention of thermite.

9/11 Research is fully aware of that and makes a pointed remark concerning this very issue at the beginning of its article Aluminothermic Residues:
****
Scientific studies of dust fallout of the World Trade Center destruction conducted within months of the attack contain a wealth of data about the dust's distribution, physical forms, and chemical composition. Although this data raised a number of interesting questions -- such as how the dust came to contain high levels of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and barium -- it remained mostly unexamined for years. Even FEMA's disclosure of profound corrosive sulfidation of steel members failed to elicit follow-up studies by official bodies, with NIST avoiding the subject entirely.

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.
****

Findings reported in Appendix C of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study seem to fit the thermite theory remarkably well

it also fits the interpretation by USGS quite well too.

Can you refresh my memory on the interpretation of the USGS on this? In any case, I found this choice passage in the USGS survey:

The dust and girder coating samples are substantially more variable in their trace element compositions than in their major element compositions. In most dust samples, zinc is the predominant trace metal, with concentrations as high as 3000 parts per million. With the exception of one sample that is high in barium (WTC01-16), the trace metals barium, lead, copper, and chromium are present in concentrations of hundreds of parts per million.

Steven Jones makes the importance of this more clear in his analysis of the WTC dust:
DR. STEVEN JONES- 9/11- THERMATE EVIDENCE PART 5 From what I've heard, barium is a rather toxic element and shouldn't be in the WTC buildings. -However-, thermate is 29% barium nitrate.

[scott3x]

It's only about a page long- rest assured that I won't send you to read a 180 page document as shaman_ once did

You didn't know what the workstation tests were.... I pointed to you to the NIST document which explains the tests.... You refuse to acknowledge them because the document is too large.

I'm not going to be reading through 180 page documents just because you think it has evidence in your favour. I'm amenable to reading -1- page from an outside source; leopold frequently doesn't even want to do that.

[leopold]

A corner in a face, sure. The other corners were apparently also undergoing thermitic reactions, but only white smoke was visible, not molten metal.

how was it "apparent" scott?
the sparks could only be seen coming from one window of one corner.

From 9/11 Research's Molten Metal article:
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel 3


Minute solidified droplets of previously molten iron in samples of World Trade Center dust
”
how were these "droplets" determined to be molten?
“

9/11 Research's article Aluminothermic Residues quotes Steven Jones in his peer reviewed paper Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying The Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, 5/27/07:
The iron-rich component of the WTC dust sample was analyzed in some detail by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (X-EDS). Using the scanning electron microscope, we found that much of the iron-rich dust was in fact composed of roughly spherical particles * microspheres. The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information.

Iron melts at 1538ºC, so the presence of these numerous iron-rich spheres implies a very high temperature. Too hot in fact for the fires in the WTC buildings since jet fuel (kerosene), paper and wood furniture * and other office materials * cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt iron or steel.




9/11 Research is fully aware of that and makes a pointed remark concerning this very issue at the beginning of its article Aluminothermic Residues:
****
Scientific studies of dust fallout of the World Trade Center destruction conducted within months of the attack contain a wealth of data about the dust's distribution, physical forms, and chemical composition. Although this data raised a number of interesting questions -- such as how the dust came to contain high levels of iron, aluminum, sulfur, and barium -- it remained mostly unexamined for years. Even FEMA's disclosure of profound corrosive sulfidation of steel members failed to elicit follow-up studies by official bodies, with NIST avoiding the subject entirely.

It would take a scientist working without the benefit of a government stipend to provide a plausible hypothesis answering questions about the dust and corroded steel: Steven E. Jones.
****




Can you refresh my memory on the interpretation of the USGS on this? In any case, I found this choice passage in the USGS survey:

The dust and girder coating samples are substantially more variable in their trace element compositions than in their major element compositions. In most dust samples, zinc is the predominant trace metal, with concentrations as high as 3000 parts per million. With the exception of one sample that is high in barium (WTC01-16), the trace metals barium, lead, copper, and chromium are present in concentrations of hundreds of parts per million.

Steven Jones makes the importance of this more clear in his analysis of the WTC dust:
DR. STEVEN JONES- 9/11- THERMATE EVIDENCE PART 5 From what I've heard, barium is a rather toxic element and shouldn't be in the WTC buildings. -However-, thermate is 29% barium nitrate.

listen scott, you are going to have to come up with sources other than the 911 site you've been spamming throughout this thread.

[leopold]

. . . leopold frequently doesn't even want to do that.

not when it comes to the 911 site you've spammed, i won't even visit the site.
as a matter of fact i click on the quote button of your posts to be sure that links you embed are not from that site before i even read your supposed evidence.

[John99]

I feel the same way about the brain washing sites. TBH, i find it hard to believe a supposed doctor (Jones) can be so stupid as he appears in that video that was linked to. Frankly he seems to be a dim wit.

[John99]

I lost all interest in debating his stepford wives and will debate Jones anytime he wants to.

[Headspin]

The corner near the entry of one of the planes I believe…….

no, it was the opposite corner, the one where the planes nose exited the south tower.

yep.

Nope, distinctive molten copper was not reported by anyone. experts on the scene reported molten steel and molten metal. none reported molten copper. what makes you think your speculation trumps expert witnesses such as cleanup engineers and firefighters who were there and witnessed it. you were not there, they were there. you are not an expert, they are experts that are capable of recognising what they saw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBNkw2Vvi28

Or aluminium.

do you have one witness that reported the distinctive molten aluminium? Again, these are expert witnesses who were there on the scene, but you know better as to what they saw?

.. and how is it determined that they formed pre-collapse?

a sample was collected from the bridge, prior to wtc7 falling.
this proves the sample came from one of the twin towers.
it proves that it was not clenaup contamination
it proves that it did not form in the rubble pile.
the spherical nature of the iron-aluminum spheres proves it was previously molten.

J. Barnett and R.Bierderman analysed a piece of corroded steel from WTC7. They believed that temperatures around 1000C and sulfur caused the partial erosion.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf

"They believed that temperatures around 1000C and sulfur caused the partial erosion" ??
believed? are they scientists or priests?
what you are really saying is that they cannot prove much other than speculate.

"temperatures around 1000C" - no, this is incorrect.
what they determined was the temperature was above 1000 Celcius, in the same way that 5000 C or 10000 C is above 1000 C.
what they are saying is that 1000C is a minimum temperature, not a maximum.

"...examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940°C were experienced..."
http://springerlink.com/content/g5w6...ext.pdf?page=1

There was also an analysis of some steel from WTC1 or 2 but their estimated temperature was lower.
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html

where does it say that?

[scott3x]

A corner in a face, sure. The other corners were apparently also undergoing thermitic reactions, but only white smoke was visible, not molten metal.

how was it "apparent" scott?
the sparks could only be seen coming from one window of one corner.

You're wrong. A mechanical engineer from Ireland brought it up in a video. I forget his name, however.

listen scott, you are going to have to come up with sources other than the 911 site you've been spamming throughout this thread.

I'd argue that you're missing out on some really good stuff; but ultimately if you refuse to hear the evidence I have to offer, there's really nothing more I can do.

[scott3x]

I feel the same way about the brain washing sites.

You've shown no evidence that sites such as 9/11 research are 'brain washing' sites. I would argue the reverse, that they are sites that get people to reconsider the brainwashing they got from the official story.

TBH, i find it hard to believe a supposed doctor (Jones) can be so stupid as he appears in that video that was linked to. Frankly he seems to be a dim wit.

You back that up with absolutely no evidence. Anyone can make unsubstantiated claims. The hard part is backing them up, as Steven Jones so eloquently does.

[Uno Hoo]

scott, watch the first few seconds of the video. his argument is imbecilic for reasons that have been repeated over and over throughout this thread. Just listen to the first few minutes and think about the reason why it is just such a stupid argument.

Uno hoo doesnt believe a plane hit the Pentagon but where did the passengers and crew who are still missing go to?

Think!

In which one of your dreams did you imagine that? I have not said such a thing. You are either a very poor reader or a liar.

[EndLightEnd]

I have a question which may have been answered already.

What were the official fall times of both towers, and what is expected for free fall alone?

[Uno Hoo]

what are you going to ignore everyone who disagrees with you?

Absolutely not.

Only those are not sufficiently civil in our interactions.

[Uno Hoo]

uh uno, (Q) is a moderator. moderators can't be put on ignore.

edit:
after viewing the list of moderators i've discovered that (Q) is no longer on it.

what happened (Q)? pee in plazmas cornflakes?

uh, leo, you get all confused up again?

[Uno Hoo]

copper wires or pipes could not account for the amount of material flowing from the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq3HYRiG7Y

the problem of the temperature of the metal is still the same, whether you consider it to be iron, aluminum or copper.

http://www.studyof911.com/gallery/al...olor_Chart.jpg

Very interesting. So, Mercury, as an example, at room temperature, according to your pretty chart, is black.

Thanks for sharing.

[Uno Hoo]

then you need to present the evidence for this. How do you yourself even know that you are not simply mistaken if you do not have the evidence to check?

Putin had the FSB inform the US in August of intelligence regarding an attack on the US.
(link already provided).

Putin called bush on 9/11 (not 9/10) after the attacks, to inform him that his bombers on exercise over the arctic would be standing down.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1801175_5.html

you are assuming Putin knew the exact date of the attack, intelligence reports are by their nature opague collective information. you are also projecting your own reasoning into Putin's head, unless you can demonstrate that you know exactly what putin's thoughts are and you had the exact information that putin had at the time, then any such projection is worthless.

I do not need to prove that I read that Putin had called Bush on 9/10.

And your retort is a non sequitur. I simply asked you the question" Why would Putin not call Bush ( if Putin had become aware of an attack plan )"? You are dancing a fancy jig to avoid answering my simple question.