Steven Gaal Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Eyewitness Reports Of Explosions Before WTC Collapses Edmund McNally, WTC 2 victim, 97th floor Edmund McNally phoned his wife Liz twice following the aircraft impact. Mr McNally said in his second phone call "Liz, this was a terrorist attack. I can hear explosions below me.'' Louie Cacchioli, a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building. Kim White, WTC 1 survivor, on 80th floor at time of impact We got down as far as the 74th floor [...] Then there was another explosion, so we left again by the stairwell. The above account ties in with the following news broadcast: 9/11 NBC News broadcast 211KB mp3 - to download file right click the link and select 'Save Target As' "Shortly after 9 o'clock [...] [Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building." One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns. [ American Free Press] Note: See The Oklahoma City Bombing for an explanation of the "crackling sound". From the Rubble When the rescue team reached an area directly in front of Tower Two, Antonio said he'd take over the equipment cart Will had pushed from Building 5. [...] The team moved ahead. Scant minutes passed. Suddenly the hallway began to shudder as a terrible deafening roar swept over them. That's when Will saw the giant fireball explode in the street. Four survived by ignoring words of advice As he left the building, [Ronald DiFrancesco] saw a fireball rolling toward him. He put his arms in front of his face. He woke up three days later at St. Vincent's hospital. His arms were burned. Some bones were broken. His lungs were singed. But he was alive -- the last person out of the south tower. Photojournalists at Ground Zero David Handschuh: "Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away". "Handschuh was thrown under a vehicle, which probably saved him from the falling debris, he said," according to the PDNonline story. Don Halasy: "As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building. By the time I regained my footing, a hailstorm of debris was falling from the sky." Trusses failing on floors 70+ of WTC 2, a building containing a minimal amount of fire, would not have caused a major explosion at the building's base. The above eyewitness accounts are corroborated by the 9/11 firefighters' transmissions on this page. Other firefighters also talk of an explosion before the collapse of WTC 1: 911 Tapes Tell Horror Of 9/11 Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion. Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion. Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion. [...] Dispatcher: Battalion 5, be advised we're trying to contact Battalion 3 at this moment to report north tower just collapsed. 'Everyone was screaming, crying, running. It's like a war zone' In New York, police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a "planned implosion" designed to catch bystanders watching from the street. An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks from Neil deGrasse Tyson The following is taken from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. "As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion." "I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first." CBS News Eyewitness Describes 'Secondary Explosions' in the WTC 09:59 - WTC 2 [93KB mp3] 10:28 - WTC 1 [89KB mp3] TCM Breaking News Tuesday, September 11, 2001 Third explosion at World Trade Centre 2:59:08 PM [GMT] A huge explosion has occurred at the second of the two twin towers hit by planes in New York. The tower is now covered in smoke. Part of second tower collapses 3:02:21 PM [GMT] There are reports that a part of the second tower has collapsed after the new explosion. CNN live report: WTC 2 collapse Streamed RealMedia "There has just been a huge explosion" Minute by Minute with the Broadcast News ABC shows video of the southern tower of the WTC folding, noting it happened just moments ago. “My God, “ says Jennings, “We’re talking about massive casualties.” Jennings begins to speculate that in order to demolish a building, there must be detonation at its base. He seems to be suggesting further bombs. Reporter Don Dahler steps in to change the direction of the thinking, “The top part was totally involved…the weight at the top collapsed the building…there was no explosion at the bottom.” [...] Peter Jennings says “I’m still confused about what caused the building to collapse,” over powerful, close up video of the first tower breaking apart and falling. Ottawa Citizen Timeline of Chaos 9:59 a.m. Reports of another huge explosion, the third at the WTC. A "cascade of fire and sparks" as one of the towers collapses and disappears from the skyline. Two women react to a third explosion at the World Trade towers He was on the 81st Floor of Two World Trade Center "I was almost out. I got down to the lobby, right near the Border’s book store. And then there was this explosion. I don’t know, I just got thrown to the ground and all this stuff fell on top of me." 9/11 Survivor Stories: Sujo & Mini "So they escorted us thru the exit of World Trade 2 and I had just reached the revolving door of the building that I heard a loud explosion and the whole building collapsed. [...] When that explosion took place and the building was crumbling over me I could see the pics of my wife, my parents, grandmother loved ones flash thru my mind and now what a relief that we are alive." Edited October 15, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Yet another change of topic and you have already spread the subject of explosions at the WTC across two threads. As already stated explosions don't necessarily = explosives. You claimed explosions could be heard in video just before the collapses. Post some. Edited October 15, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Two new articles at the Journal of 9/11 Studies Submitted by Kevin Ryan on Sun, 10/21/2012 - 7:46pm Journal of 9/11 Studies Paul Schreyer Ron Brookman Professor Graeme MacQueen and I are pleased to announce two new, peer reviewed articles that have been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. The first is from German journalist Paul Schreyer and is titled Anomalies of the air defense on 9/11. This paper identifies six major, simultaneous anomalies that occurred on September 11, 2001 with regard to the national air defenses. Here is an excerpt: “The official explanation for the detour is that air traffic controllers at Langley had sort of a standard flight plan, sending all jets generally to the east and that this standardized eastern heading somehow replaced the original NORAD scramble order. But this seems to be a dubious claim. Because how could that have happened? The pilots knew the original scramble order. They knew which direction NEADS wanted them to fly. And then they somehow forgot? But, same as with the Otis scramble, there seems only little chance to dig deeper because ‘Giant Killer’, the responsible control facility, deleted all its tapes from the communication on 9/11." The second article is from licensed structural engineer Ronald H. Brookman and is titled A Discussion of “Analysis of Structural Response of WTC 7 to Fire and Sequential Failures Leading to Collapse.” This paper discusses a recent article published in the Journal of Structural Engineering, authored by a team including several of the primary NIST WTC report authors. Brookman’s discussion reviews how the NIST authors continue to ignore facts related to the construction of WTC 7 in their computer models, and how the basic information needed to verify those computer models remains unavailable to independent researchers. Here is an excerpt: “The destruction of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001 and the final NCSTAR reports issued in 2008 raise many questions in addition to those outlined here, but one thing is certain: Thousands of hours of computer simulation are no substitute for a forensic investigation based on published national standards and well-established principles of scientific inquiry. “ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 23, 2012 Author Share Posted October 23, 2012 I haven't had a chance to look at the papers yet but the claim they were "peer-reviewed" is a lie. The publication's review process consists of little more than posting "papers" to a closed forum of truthers before release. The lack of legitmate review was the "flying elephant paper which even the lead author soon acknowledged was nonsense but still remains on their site. He claimed a video frame from 9/11 showed a jetliner flying over the WTC but he almost no knowledge of photography and did not understand perspective. As he later admitted the plane was flying over NJ. None of his "peers" caught this basic and obvious error in their review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 How Did They Know? Examining the Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Destruction Written by Dennis McMahon, J.D., L.L.M. Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/682-how-did-they-know-examining-the-foreknowledge-of-building-7s-destruction.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 How Did They Know? Examining the Foreknowledge of Building 7’s Destruction Written by Dennis McMahon, J.D., L.L.M. Wednesday, 21 November 2012 02: http://ae911truth.or...estruction.html Please try and keep threads on topic, this one is about the lack of support for Gage's theories (and by extension those of the TM) from architects and engineers. The author of this piece is a lawyer. Disgustingly he insinuates that the FDNY was part of the conspiracy. There already are several threads about 7 WTC and the predictions it would collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Gage's theories = demolition foreknowledge = demolition thus foreknowledge = Gage's theories (on topic) Edited December 2, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 2, 2012 Author Share Posted December 2, 2012 By that logic almost any 9/11 post is "on topic" on almost any 9/11 thread. This has nothing to do with the lack of support for Gage's theories from people with relevant expertise. The author's insinuation the FDNY was involved is stupid and offensive. There already are several threads about the collapse of 7 WTC, the FDNY's prediction that it was doomed was discussed on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 By that logic almost any 9/11 post is "on topic" on almost any 9/11 thread.// END COLBY NO , if its about DEMOLITION ITS ON TOPIC . The AIA disowns Richard Gage "AIA" and few architect want to have anything to do with him. // end COLBY THREAD TITLE 3. AIA .Disowned GAGE for Demolition theories I wrote Gage's theories = demolition foreknowledge = demolition thus foreknowledge = Gage's theories (on topic) THUS ON TOPIC ================================= Since this below is not refutable by you,your whole paradigm falls apart. Molten aluminum Next, Mr. Powers addresses the issue of the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse. Many in the Movement have cited this as direct evidence of thermite being placed in the Tower. However, Mr. Power argues that this material is actually molten aluminum, and that molten aluminum can glow bright orange, rather than just silver as others have asserted. Again, this is an issue I have already addressed extensively in my other writings. I as explained in one of my articles: Some still may argue that the material was molten aluminum and that it was heated to high enough temperatures to get it to glow that brightly. Below is a chart showing temperature-dependent colors of metals. At about 980ºC (1800ºF), most metals begin to glow “light orange.” PM asserts throughout the book that this is how hot the fires could have been in the Towers. However, we previously noted that NIST has no evidence that the fires did reach these temperatures in the buildings. However, even if we accept that the fires did reach those temperature levels, the material still could not have been aluminum because of how long it was heated. As explained by physicist Jerry Lobdill: The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel. Perhaps the most important reason why the material could not have been molten aluminum is that the material actually became white hot. Regardless of what kind of material was glowing, nobody has explained what would have heated it to over 2000ºF to get it to glow that brightly. In addition, there is simply little chance the material could have been molten aluminum, based on the fact that the material glowed for as long as it did. As Dr. Jones summarizes: [F]alling liquid aluminum, which due to low emissivity and high reflectivity appears silvery-gray in daylight conditions, after falling through air 1-2 meters, regardless of the temperature at which the poured-out aluminum left the vessel. Aluminum does incandesce (glow) like other metals, but faintly, so… falling liquid aluminum [in bright daylight] will appear silvery-gray. While molten aluminum can be ruled out because of the reasons stated above, there is a known substance that easily could account for the observations: thermate, which is thermite with added sulfur. The thermite reaction produces temperatures in the white-hot range up to 4500°F, and the added sulfur lowers the melting point of iron significantly.[34] ======================== 34] Quoted from: Debunking The Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can’t Face Up To Reality - Part 5: Nanothermite in the Towers, by Adam Taylor http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 5, 2012 Author Share Posted December 5, 2012 By that logic almost any 9/11 post is "on topic" on almost any 9/11 thread.// END COLBY NO , if its about DEMOLITION ITS ON TOPIC . The AIA disowns Richard Gage "AIA" and few architect want to have anything to do with him. // end COLBY THREAD TITLE3. AIA .Disowned GAGE for Demolition theories I wrote Gage's theories = demolition foreknowledge = demolition thus foreknowledge = Gage's theories (on topic) THUS ON TOPIC No foreknowledge needed the FDNY predicted collapse based on the observed damage to, instability of and raging fires in 7 WTC. And still not "on topic" ================================= Since this below is not refutable by you,your whole paradigm falls apart. Molten aluminum Next, Mr. Powers addresses the issue of the molten metal seen flowing out of the South Tower shortly before its collapse. Many in the Movement have cited this as direct evidence of thermite being placed in the Tower. However, Mr. Power argues that this material is actually molten aluminum, and that molten aluminum can glow bright orange, rather than just silver as others have asserted. Again, this is an issue I have already addressed extensively in my other writings. I as explained in one of my articles: Yawn, are we back in 2006? It is theorized that various other materials were mixed in with the aluminium causing the color shift. It woulld have required probibatively large amounts of thermite to have cut the WTC's massive columns let alone enough to have produced the cascade seen in the video. Oddly (if the truthers were correct) we don't see any instability in the tower associated with the supposed cutting of the column. http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 Molten What? By Jerry Lobdill 29 March 2007 There is much misunderstanding about the meaning of the colors we see when we look at pictures of the WTC towers before they fell. 9/11 literature is full of faulty assumptions, assertions, and conclusions. In this short paper I will present a case for how the pictures should be interpreted regarding the colors of thermal emissions we see in them. The case is based on the physics of black body radiation and gravity flow of liquids. Definitions Emissivity—This is a dimensionless constant, the ratio of the energy radiated by a material to the energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. This is the total energy across the emission spectrum. Emissivity is a number less than or equal to 1. Planck’s Radiation Law—See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation. Planck’s Law gives the spectral radiance of electromagnetic radiation of a black body. This is a function of frequency (or, equivalently, wavelength) and temperature. This law embodies the concept that the radiated spectrum as a function of frequency at a given temperature is the same shape for all radiating materials. The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency.1 Discussion It is very clear that the hydrocarbon fire from jet fuel could not have weakened the towers. All private and government researchers agree on this point. It is also very clear that the tower construction materials, together with the planes that crashed into them on 9/11, contained nothing that could have produced the incendiary reaction that was observed on the 82nd floor of WTC-2 shortly before the tower began its collapse. What do we know about the incendiary event? From the video and still photos we see glowing metal that appears to be in the solid phase inside the opening. Its color is orange. We see a shower of white-hot sparks emanating from the opening. We see a yellow-orange liquid flowing from the opening. This material becomes more orange as it falls. As far as we can see it in its fall it seems to remain liquid. This material is clearly liquid that is flowing under gravity to the opening. 1 Recent discussion on the stj911 forum points out that emissivity is not really a constant, but the participants in the discussion agree that for purposes of estimating temperature from the radiated spectrum this assumption is probably good enough. See http://www.phpbbserver.com/stj911/viewtopic.php?t=300&mforum=stj911, post by Greg Jenkins, Apr. 29, 2007, 9:10 PM There has been controversy over what this material is. It has been suggested that it is molten aluminum alloys from the plane. Some have suggested that it might be a mixture of aluminum alloys and organic material. Others have suggested that it is molten iron. Amazingly, in a televised Q&A session, a NIST official, John Gross, denied being aware of any molten iron in the rubble, and although NIST’s investigation was limited to the time interval between the plane crash and the initiation of collapse Gross did not mention the event we are analyzing here.2 Experiments have been conducted in the attempt to settle the issues. To date the parties do not agree on what the material is. Planck’s law and the nature of emissivity assure us that we can, with confidence, determine the approximate temperatures of all glowing hot objects in the pictures and videos without knowing what the objects are made of. There is no need to repeat here the table of colors vs temperature that has been published elsewhere. All parties agree that it is accurate. Dr. Wood has claimed that the liquid metal flowing out of the 82nd floor of WTC-2 could be aluminum on the basis of her experiment, wherein a titanium ladle full of pure aluminum was heated until both the ladle and the liquid aluminum were orange hot. The aluminum, as it heated up, appeared to radiate with a less intense energy than the titanium, but the color was the same. As expected, the aluminum melted at 660 degrees Centigrade, and at that temperature the radiant spectrum and the emissivity of aluminum conspired to make the liquid aluminum appear silvery (no apparent glowing). As the temperature of the aluminum rose it began to glow with the same color as the ladle. The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum on the basis of Dr. Wood’s experiment is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel. Dr. Jones demonstrated by experiment that organic material floats on the liquid aluminum and burns up (oxidizes). Further, the liquid aluminum in this experiment was never heated to the point where it no longer appeared silvery. This experiment gave the expected result. Organic material would not change the color vs temperature behavior of aluminum. The conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron. 2 http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 12, 2012 Author Share Posted December 12, 2012 LOL there are only 3 citations in this babble: - Wikipedia's entry about Plank's Law, - a thread on a truther forum only available to members in support of the claim "The only factor affecting the radiated spectrum that depends on the nature of the material is emissivity, a constant, independent of frequency" - a dead link not on the Internet Archive supporting the claim "Amazingly in a televised Q&A session, a NIST official, John Gross, denied being aware of any molten iron in the rubble, and although NIST’s investigation was limited to the time interval between the plane crash and the initiation of collapse Gross did not mention the event we are analyzing here" Little evidence is provided refuting the notion the material could have been aluminium mixed with other materials, he mentioned experiments by Jones and that nutball Woods but did not provide citations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 13, 2012 Share Posted December 13, 2012 (edited) This video is a response to Facts "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see: REAL 911 Truth 9/11 Incontrovertible Proof NIST lied - John Gross Lead Engineer . http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C0r0rWm6p0s -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Uploaded on Jan 3, 2011 Some important links to additional physical evidence to prove steel melted at the WTC on 9/11. The RJ Lee Group performed a study for Deutschbank of the WTC Dust Composition and Morphology: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ DR. Gross got hear and see no evil down ...but speak evil ...sorry guess its his specialty. Edited December 13, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 This video is a response to Facts "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see: REAL 911 Truth 9/11 Incontrovertible Proof NIST lied - John Gross Lead Engineer . Yawn none of the witness said they saw “pools” of molten steel, the firefighters said they saw “molten steel running down the channel beams” but how did they determine that the molten metal was steel? Various metals with lower melting points would have been in abundant supply at GZ. The 2nd witness claimed he saw molten beams being dug up after years of babbling about molten steel they have yet to turn up a single image of molten or re-solidified steel. Gage babbles about the so called ‘meteorites’ of WTC debris but they had “Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible.” http://web.archive.org/web/20070825194227/http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=35 Here’s a close up, now how exactly would pieces of paper, which typically has a flame point of at most 450 °C (842 °F) survive being exposed to molten steel which must have been at least 1425°C (2600°F)? there is not even any signs of charring on the paper. The video also had some clueless guy claiming the GZ crosses were melted together in the rubble pile. Amazing if it were true that they were joined together perfectly aligned rotationally and at 90° angles, with the short beams ending up symmetrical. Wow I really do believe in miracles!! The notion they were formed random chance is absurd. But that was not what happened: http://www.snopes.com/Rumors/images/cross.jpg "Of course, this was not built as a cross," he continued. "It is a T-beam, found in every one of the buildings destroyed at the World Trade Center site." http://www.gothamgazette.com/citizen/sep02/irish-wtc.shtml “The cross is a steel T-beam, a common architectural device used in the building of the World Trade Center towers.” http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/10/atheists-continue-battle-against-world-trade-center-cross-at-memorial/comment-page-1/ “a 17-foot-long crossbeam, weighing at least two tons, was thrust at a vertical angle in the hellish wasteland. Like a cross.” http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-09-08/politics/35418445_1_frank-silecchia-crane-operators-ground-zero There was also a lot of babble about the debris pile fires as if the towers hadn’t full of combustible materials and the presence of thermite or some variant were the only explanation. That of course was not the case. http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html And thermite reactions normally burn out in seconds so the plotters would have had to have used prohibitively large amounts of the incendiary for it to have been melting steel days or even weeks after the fact, even the amount to have been the towers down would have been absurdly large. http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.html I think that just about covers it, did I miss anything? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Uploaded on Jan 3, 2011 Some important links to additional physical evidence to prove steel melted at the WTC on 9/11. The RJ Lee Group performed a study for Deutschbank of the WTC Dust Composition and Morphology: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The posted video was a shortened version of the 1st with nothing about the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Molten Metal Workers Reported Molten Metal in Ground Zero Rubble Reports of molten metal in the foundations of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers are frequently noted in literature of proponents of theories that the buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition. The first such report to be widely publicized was one by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn citing principals of two of the companies contracted to clean up Ground Zero. The president of Tully Construction of Flushing, NY, said he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at Ground Zero. Bollyn also cites Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, MD, as having seen molten steel in the bottoms of elevator shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. Although reports of molten steel are consistent with the persistent heat at Ground Zero in the months following the attack, we find the American Free Press report suspect for two reasons. First, Tully Construction was one of four companies awarded contracts by New York City's Department of Design and Construction to dispose of the rubble at Ground Zero, and CDI was subcontracted by Tully and was instrumental in devising a plan to recycle the steel. The involvement of Steve Tully and Mark Loizeaux in the destruction of the evidence of the unprecedented collapses would seem to disqualify them as objective reporters of evidence. Interestingly, CDI was also hired to bury the rubble of the Murrah Building in the wake of the Oklahoma City Bombing. That Loizeaux stood trial on charges of illegal campaign contributions casts further doubt on his credibility. 1 A second reason to doubt this molten steel report is the fact that it has been used by Bollyn and others to support the dubious theory that the collapses were caused by bombs in the Towers' basements. Corroborating Reports There are reports of molten steel beyond those cited by American Free Press. Most of these have come to light as a result of a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, which has stimulated interest in the subject of molten steel at Ground Zero. * A report by Waste Age describes New York Sanitation Department workers moving "everything from molten steel beams to human remains." 2 A report on the Government Computer News website quotes Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. as stating: 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 A Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel." 4 A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage: When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat. It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off. I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5 A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating: Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6 A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated: Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7 An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage: As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8 A member of the New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based. Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9 The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage: ... or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10 A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." 11 This construction photograph shows the foundation of South Tower in the foreground, with the foundation of the North Tower in the left background. The foundations were seven stories deep. * Most of the press reports compiled here were gathered by other researchers, including Matthew Everett, the author of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11: A Scandal Beyond What Has Been Seen Before; David Ray Griffin; and the author of posts such as this on georgewashington.blogspot.com. References 1. Fire Power: It Took Three Lawyers to Stop the Destruction of CDI Inc., The Daily Record, 10/7/00 2. D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime, WasteAge.com, 4/1/02[cached] 3. Handheld app eased recovery tasks, GCN.com, 9/11/02[cached] 4. Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero, Messenger-Inquirer.com, 6/29/02[cached] 5. The Chaplain's Tale, RecordOnline.com, [cached] 6. Mobilizing Public Health, Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine, [cached] 7. The scene at Ground Zero, NEHA.org, [cached] 8. WTC a Structural Success, SEAU News, , page 3 9. Ground Zero, 12/01[cached] 10. <a name="ref11">Unflinching Look Among the Ruins, NYPost.com, 3/3/04 Edited December 14, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now