Debunking the WTC 9/11 Molten Steel Argument

[Toro]

This admin is so corrupt that many Americans will not trust any investigation by anyone while they are in power.

That may be, but suspending critical judgment simply for this reason and concluding that because they are saying it means the conclusion is implausible is not a serious conclusion.

 

[cbi0090]

This admin is so corrupt that many Americans will not trust any investigation by anyone while they are in power.

They have proven over and over that they will politicize and and all entities they have any control over. I dont care who studies it and tells me everything is hunky dory. I will wait for the distance of time on this one.

BTW Where is the NIST's study on the collapse of building 7 they promised?

Well, I can definitely tell you that engineers are not in power and it's not just American engineers involved. In case you haven't noticed there are about 30 buildings that have been built recently that are taller than the Sears Tower and none of them are in the U.S. and most designed by non-U.S. firms.
You better believe they wanted to know what happened with the Towers before they finished their designs. The mechanisms are now well understood and the only argument in the engineering community is where to draw the line regarding risk.
Design is governed in part by risk as well as physics. We don't design roads to handle people driving 120 mph but they are quite capable of driving that fast, for example. So, do we now design buildings to withstand fire for indefinite periods of time? NIST, by the way, publishes standards mostly based on the research of others. They don't, per se, conduct the research themselves. The report you may be talking about would be the results of the discussions concerning new building standards that are presently being hammered out.

 

[eots]

Well, I can definitely tell you that engineers are not in power and it's not just American engineers involved. In case you haven't noticed there are about 30 buildings that have been built recently that are taller than the Sears Tower and none of them are in the U.S. and most designed by non-U.S. firms.
You better believe they wanted to know what happened with the Towers before they finished their designs. The mechanisms are now well understood and the only argument in the engineering community is where to draw the line regarding risk

.

well the don't the nist report is still not concluded..and gives the report they have supplied so far as inadequate and having a extremely low rate of probability ..you like to write little story's like there fact ..also i can provide many foreign architects engineers physicist that call the white house story into question

Design is governed in part by risk as well as physics. We don't design roads to handle people driving 120 mph but they are quite capable of driving that fast, for example. So, do we now design buildings to withstand fire for indefinite periods of time?

no steel building has collapsed due to fire even when they burned out of control for days...and the symmetrical nature of the collapse uniformly into its own foot print is not something that could happen by chance



NIST, by the way, publishes standards mostly based on the research of others. They don't, per se, conduct the research themselves. The report you may be talking about would be the results of the discussions concerning new building standards that are presently being hammered out.

James Quintiere, Ph.D.

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7802


Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.

In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”

Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”

Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.


Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

 

[nukeman]

again the false assumption secretes cant be kept


On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower." [WingTV]




U.S. Gov video bio weapon test in New york etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6GMNd-xN0

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm

One quick question! How do you get to the 50th floor without going through the previous 49?? I mean if the power is "cut to floors 50 and up" that would mean that the power was still on on the bottom 49 correct?? So by your own source there was no way someone could have secreted anything into the building without FIRST going through the WORKING floors.

The power may have been cut to the upper floors but I highley doubt that is where the "security" measures take place, I am willing to bet they take place at the ENTRANCE to the building..........

What good would it do to demolish the top floors and not the bottom floors that do all the support?? By your rational the top should have just fallen over at the 50 floor mark...

 

[eots]

One quick question! How do you get to the 50th floor without going through the previous 49?? I mean if the power is "cut to floors 50 and up" that would mean that the power was still on on the bottom 49 correct?? So by your own source there was no way someone could have secreted anything into the building without FIRST going through the WORKING floors.

The power may have been cut to the upper floors but I highley doubt that is where the "security" measures take place, I am willing to bet they take place at the ENTRANCE to the building..........

What good would it do to demolish the top floors and not the bottom floors that do all the support?? By your rational the top should have just fallen over at the 50 floor mark...

9/11 Truth: Unusual Evacuations
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo&feature=related[/ame]


Scott Forbes

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhauHfDJ4b4&feature=related[/ame]

 

[BrianH]

Anyone who has any experience with fires knows that electricity is always (if possible) cut by the electric company. My father gets called out during all hours of the night to cut off the electricity to houses that are burning.

Eots, sorry, but the video on the OP is way more believable than the nonsense that you give as "evidence." It's actual videos. If you notice, the building collapses from the top, not the bottom. The weight from the top of the WTC overpowered the weakening steel trusses. If you've ever worked with steel, you would know that fire burining at 1800 degrees would easily soften steel.

But I can almost garauntee that your next post will be, "Your a moron, cause....the video is fake...blah blah blah..."

You're right though, the WTC was brought down by a controlled explosion....by terrorists. A 757 full of highly combustable jet fuel, traveling between 500-600 mph, smashing into concrete and steel, creates a massive explosion.

 

[eots]

Anyone who has any experience with fires knows that electricity is always (if possible) cut by the electric company. My father gets called out during all hours of the night to cut off the electricity to houses that are burning.

Eots, sorry, but the video on the OP is way more believable than the nonsense that you give as "evidence." It's actual videos. If you notice, the building collapses from the top, not the bottom. The weight from the top of the WTC overpowered the weakening steel trusses. If you've ever worked with steel, you would know that fire burining at 1800 degrees would easily soften steel.

But I can almost garauntee that your next post will be, "Your a moron, cause....the video is fake...blah blah blah..."

You're right though, the WTC was brought down by a controlled explosion....by terrorists. A 757 full of highly combustible jet fuel, traveling between 500-600 mph, smashing into concrete and steel, creates a massive explosion.

the power was cut weeks prior to 911 not on 911 and weakened trusses are no explanation for the buildings to fall at free fall speed or the complete destruction of the central core or a perfectly symmetrical collapse . as far as your expertise in steel.. I think underwriters knows a little more about the steel involved than you ..clearly as do the fire fighters who saw the molten metal



9/11: Molten Metal at Ground Zero
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM[/ame]






collapse [Friday, November 12 2004 - Articles

UL Executive Speaks Out on WTC Study


"The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel." - Kevin Ryan

Friday, November 12, 2004
(911Truth.org news service -- updated 11/13, 11/14)

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

In a letter dated Thursday (11/11, complete text below), UL executive Kevin Ryan called on Frank Gayle, director of the government team that has spent two years studying how the trade center was built and why it fell, to "do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

Kevin Ryan is Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. This is a division of UL, the product-compliance and testing giant. Because UL certified the WTC steel for its ability to withstand fires, the steel's performance on September 11 is obviously of concern to the company. While Ryan's letter does not constitute an official statement from Underwriters Laboratories, it suggests incipient disagreements between UL and NIST about the true cause of the WTC collapses.

Gayle is deputy chief of the Metallurgy Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and head of the "NIST and the WTC" team. A draft of the government agency's final report on the WTC collapses is due in January.

Ryan copied the letter to Gayle in e-mails to David Ray Griffin, author of the New Pearl Harbor, and to Catherine Austin Fitts, who is a member of the 911Truth.org board. Griffin requested and received permission to distribute Ryan's letter to other parties. The letter was published Friday (11/12) at septembereleventh.org, the site of the 9/11 Visibility Project.

911Truth.org called Ryan Friday to confirm his authorship. Ryan made it clear he is speaking for himself only, not on behalf of his laboratory or the company, but others at UL are aware of his action.

The letter raises disturbing questions, pointing out that the temperatures of fuel fires in the towers on September 11 appear to have been far too low to cause a failure of the structural steel.

A chemist by profession, Ryan said he considers Gayle to be a good scientist and an honest person. Given the impact of September 11 on events around the world, Ryan said everyone needs to know the full truth of what really happened on that day.

In a related development, the New York Times reported Friday (11/12) that the NIST team under Gayle is planning to hold some of its deliberations in secret. "The announcement has been sharply protested by advocates for families of the 9/11 victims, who said they were considering a lawsuit to force the agency to open the meetings to the public," the Times wrote.

As the Times noted, the NIST investigation was started in 2002 after lobbying by, among others, the Skyscraper Safety Campaign, an organization created by Monica Gabrielle and Sally Regenhard, both of whom lost family on September 11.

Gabrielle told the Times that NIST should have "one job, and one job only - to find out the truth of what happened to those buildings and to report to the public about it. You don't owe industry, the Port Authority or federal agencies anything. You owe it to the public - the truth, no matter where it goes." (See www.nytimes.com)

-911Truth.org (nl)

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

Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org]

---------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [email protected]

Date: 11/11/2004



Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html

2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187

3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php

5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)

6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

 

[BrianH]

So what does molten metal have to do with anything. Fires burning hot enough to melt metal will melt metal. That proves nothing, other than the fires being hot enough to weaken steel...which is a given.

I guess they built the WTC to 757 Annihalation Specifications...much like hurricane specifications. That's rediculous.

I can see the reports when the WTC were first built.

"This thing can handle a direct hit from a 757 full of fuel, a nuclear warhead, and a Category 5 hurricane, and still stand."

Watch the video, it's self explanitory. I see no "explosions" that bring them down.

 

[eots]

So What Your Saying Is You Cant Read ?

 

[BrianH]

What I'm saying, is I'm tired of reading your endless list of of speculation-based conspiracy "evidence," and have gotten to where I just automatically assume that you're full of crap. However, I always enjoy a good debate/argument, therefore I keep making your theory look invalid because not only is it invalid, but it's fun.

 

[eots]

IN OTHER WORDS...the facts presented are beyond your comprhension and cause your weak mind to tire..the facts on steel and temp are not speculative

 

[BrianH]

Well, it's apparent that you've watched too many movies about government conspiracy and dictatorship...your Avatar proves this.

FYI, I comprehend all of your so called "evidence," just not the conclusion that you gather from it. Which shows your small capacity to think for yourself, but believe anything anyone tells you about how are government is conspiring to wage jihad on its own people.

I'll say it again for the 10th time...you do not have proof.

 

[eots]

Well, it's apparent that you've watched too many movies about government conspiracy and dictatorship...your Avatar proves this.




FYI, I comprehend all of your so called "evidence," just not the conclusion that you gather from it. Which shows your small capacity to think for yourself, but believe anything anyone tells you about how are government is conspiring to wage jihad on its own people.

I'll say it again for the 10th time...you do not have proof.

there is a large body of evidence that would cause most reasonable people examining fully would conclude at the minimum the official reports are inaccurate and a cover-up and a full investigation under the terms and conditions of the petition is immediately required..you made false statements about steel and temp tolerances and molten steel..and i addressed them with facts not opinions

 

[nukeman]

9/11 Truth: Unusual Evacuations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo&feature=related


Scott Forbes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhauHfDJ4b4&feature=related

YOU still didn't answer my question. Why don't YOU try answering it instead of sending me to some nut job on youtube.

YOU haven't explained how a POWER DOWN on the top 50% of the floors affected security on the bottom 50% of the floors. Last time I checked you dont enter a building at floor 50 or higher you start at the bottom..... SO how did this affect the security???

In your own words please, without some conspiracy video... I just want you to explain how you can enter the building from the 50th floor!!!!

 

[Paulie]

Well, it's apparent that you've watched too many movies about government conspiracy and dictatorship...your Avatar proves this.

By that logic then, it's apparent that you watch too much TV, as your avatar proves that.

 

[BrianH]

By that logic then, it's apparent that you watch too much TV, as your avatar proves that.

Maybe so, but I'm not quoting Stephen Colbert either, or trying to convince people of Stephen Colbert's philosophy on our government. Big difference between my statement and yours.

 

[cbi0090]

IN OTHER WORDS...the facts presented are beyond your comprhension and cause your weak mind to tire..the facts on steel and temp are not speculative

Excuse me, but it is you how are ignoring the "facts on steel and temperature" because you don't really understand them.

 

[eots]

Excuse me, but it is you how are ignoring the "facts on steel and temperature" because you don't really understand them.

your sentences and questions are incoherent...wtf are you struggling to say ?

 

[cbi0090]

your sentences and questions are incoherent...wtf are you struggling to say ?

You are trying to imply that you understand the facts of steel and temperature when you obviously do not understand them at all.

 

[eots]

all you do is make short ,stupid ,vague little statements of no substance what so ever..do you have anything specific to address