Physics Prof Says Bombs not Planes brought down wtc

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then why did you post the pictures of the dexpan?

Why do you always pick on posts you perceive to be easy targets and completely ignore and skip over everything else? For a self-appointed "debunker", you're very selective in your work.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Then why did you post the pictures of the dexpan?

Lmfao, Howard. You do absolutely nothing but try to discredit and ridicule anything anybody contradicting the official line says, even when that means you have to twist things or even lie outright.

And of all these last few, massive posts, Howard addresses the post about Dexpan?



Who hasn't caught on to Howard's real purpose here yet?

There were no concrete beams or etc., but 4" thick concrete slabs between each floor, every floor, until the basement floors from what I understand. I don't think Dexpan was used unless it was somewhere in the basement. More likely, whatever destroyed the steel blew the hell out of the concrete as well, and thermite was used in the lower extremities. At least from what I understand; LabTop most likely has more insight anyway.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by bsbray11]

This is the adagio Howard goes by for a few weeks already.

That's the difference.

We see the grave implications if we, or a serious neutral private investigation with access to everything they ask for, not blocked by blockheads in an evil administration, and backed by a reformed Congress and House, would come up with definite proof for even the most dickheaded "official theory" believer, that this administration was complient, or even planned 9/11.

The result COULD be a bloody civil war, with most of the US forces abroad, with a lot of their heavy equipment.
Can you imagine who would jump on the occasion?
That's why you have to be extremely carefull how to bring forward any solid proof, do it bit by bit, or all hell will break loose.
Leave enough room to let the greedy politicians revoke their decades long attitude, and step into the plate, to start a hard needed reform on all levels.

And I do care to much for all these fine and normal americans I know personnally and online, to set the stage for a bloody outbreak of violence.

Note: think about it: you own a Conspiracy site.
You see the postings go down, and the quality thereof.
You create your own team of intelligent opponents.
Ratings and postings rocketing to the sky again......Good idea, all benefit.
Just a thought.

Structual pre weakoning? Remember, the stuff does not explode.

just thoughts....

Originally posted by LaBTop
The result COULD be a bloody civil war, with most of the US forces abroad, with a lot of their heavy equipment.

It is quite likely that this is indeed the intended outcome and has been all along since the inception. The United States is too strong to destroy from without.

I had a second look at the history of that story, and what do we find here in spring 2002 : www.wpi.edu...

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called an eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

An eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

"The important questions," says Biederman, "are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain."

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community.
-JKM

They did NOT get NIST funding, NIST denied it and the whole highly interesting subject has been burried in the dark catacombs of the past.

Ofcourse this should have been investigated to the maximum extent of the possible research paths.


I found more in the FEMA report, the metallurgic section, you really have to see the photo's in there ! :
www.fema.gov...

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulphur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. .... A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Ofcourse they didn't got funding and samples from NIST, since they offered them on a plate the reason to deny :
There were no "long-burning fires", before collapse, so the case is closed.

It's crystal-clear that this administration has to cover up so many glaring discrepancies in their own explanations of 9/11, it will only be a matter of time, before they will break their necks (hopefully in a rope) on one or more mistakes made during execution of their endgames.

Could it be that these guys accidentally stumbled on exactly how the columns were severed, or should I say melted, and the study was quickly shut down?

Could it be Howard is subtly pointing us in the right direction without the knowledge of his handlers, because in his heart he really wants the truth to be known? ...just kidding, Howie. Or am I..?

Certainly warrants further attention. Good find, LT.

Labtop

In those pictures you posted you seem to be saying that the seismic energy recorded is the same as the Potential Energy for the entire building.

That does not sound right at all.

Jim Hoffman's article calculates that the potential energy for WTC1 was around 4x10^11 joules, or 95 tons of TNT. Quite a bit more than 2.7 tons.

Where do you get a direct correlation between seismic energy and PE? The PE for the buildings is much higher than a few tons of TNT.


Edit: BTW Does anyone have a plausible explanation for how they lined the entire building with explosives as in Labtops slideshow? When did they have the time to do so with no one noticing.

I know someone will want the proof of the accepted theory first so heres a taste.

www.nist.gov...


Now that I've posted my evidence I will be happy to see the timeline for wiring two of the busiest buildings in the US with explosives when no one was looking.

[edit on 21-11-2005 by LeftBehind]

The "eutectic steel" story didn't end with the FEMA report.

There's a brief commentary (just a couple of pages) at www.me.wpi.edu... where a new guy, George Vander Voort joins the team, and they're talking about other experiments that are under way to learn more about the sulphur involved in the reaction. The PDF file appears to have been written in 2003.

What did they discover? Can't say exactly, but Vander Voort has been giving talks about it since then. There's a reference to one he made at the end of 2004 at dunand.northwestern.edu... , for instance, and the Powerpoint file at www.abmbrasil.com.br... is presumably something he uses at these presentations (you'll need Powerpoint, or the Powerpoint viewer to see it). We don't know what he says to accompany each slide, though, so if you're interested then contact him directly: george.vandervoort @buehler.com (if he's still there), or try Biederman via www.me.wpi.edu...

Personally, I suspect that the reaction is related to the long term heating of the steel in the "pile" with the drywall dust.

I can melt a screwdriver with a cigarette lighter too you know (sorry for one-liner)

LeftBehind,


You ask for an oppourtunity to line the buildings with explosives?

On both 9/8 and 9/9, massive sections of the Twin Towers were without power.

This is quoted from the San Fransisco Independant Media Center:

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

"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. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

"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. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."


Srouce: sf.indymedia.org...

Originally posted by Garden Spider
LeftBehind,


You ask for an oppourtunity to line the buildings with explosives?

On both 9/8 and 9/9, massive sections of the Twin Towers were without power.

This is quoted from the San Fransisco Independant Media Center:

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

"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. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

"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. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."


Srouce: sf.indymedia.org...

Posted previously in its own thread



www.abovetopsecret.com...

911review.com...




and generally beleived to be an internet hoax.

HowardRoark,

Once again, you point us in the direction of a "debunking" of the claim about the power being shut down for maintanance. However, the links you provided, in no way, debunk the idea. In fact, most of the arguements presented seem to be about whether or not powering down an office building would affect the security cameras.

But this has absolutely no bearing on the conversation at hand, and I saw no evidence, and no one provided any to dispute the fact that there had been a power down in the building. The point is, if there was, and if maintanence people were walking in and out of the building all day, it presented the oppourtunity to plant the bombs.

I also noticed you presented another typically asanine arguement in the thread:

Lets assume that you wanted to put charges on the perimeter columns of the building on 10 different floors. Lets say 75 charges per floor. That would be 750 charges. For the following tasks:

1 - move the furniture out of the way,

2 - open up the column enclosure or drop ceiling

3 - Attach the explosive device

4 - wire the device to a central riser or conduit

5 - close up the enclosure or ceiling

6 - repair and repaint drywall as nessessary,

7 - Clean up

8 - Replace the furniture.

How many workers would you need to do all of this in 30 hours?

it's interesting to note that while you admit you are not a structural engineer of any sort, you assume that in order to plant explosives, one would need to blow a hole in the wall. But may I ask how you know this? How do you know that the main support columns, which were located next to the elevator shafts, weren't accesible by elevator shaft?

The second point I would like to make, is that you seem to think that in order for an explosive device to be effective, it would have to be placed directly next to the support pillars. I'm afraid the old famous colloquialism, "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" could apply here. The explosive devices would simply need to be located relatively near the support columns (say a few feet, or a yard), unless you believe that the sheetrock and drywall could provide enough shielding to stop an explosive device aimed to sever steel and concrete beams.

So well done, your non-arguements continue to be ineffective.

Howard,

I don't know about that article being a hoax, but there was a similar article in People Magazine, Sept. 12, 2001, where Ben Fountain, a 42-year-old financial analyst, stated pretty much the same thing the "hoax" did.

In the article, he stated:

How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on.

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

The article was originally online at people.aol.com... but has since been removed.

The site calling it a hoax is called 9-11 review, and actually supports the demolition theory.

911review.com...

An evacuation is not the same thing as a 36 hour power down.

Scott Forbes does not mention fire drills, Ben Fountain does not mention a cable upgrade. There is no correlation there.

Scott Forbes story has never been confirmed by anyone. Nor has his existence. One email sent to one researcher with no follow up. I could have written that email for all we know about it.

www.serendipity.li...



Here is what 9-11 review says about it.

911review.com...

After being posted on scores of websites for over a year, this story has failed to elicit any corroborating reports, even about the identity of 'Scott Forbes'. Aside from the fact that the sourcing of the story doesn't meet the most basic journalistic standards, its content is thoroughly implausible.

And they support the demo theory.

You'll also notice that in that entire People article only one person mentions evacuations. For all we know only his office practiced it. Ten people are quoted who worked in the buildings, one of them mentions evacuations, none of them mention a 36 hour power down involving half of the building.


Even if the Forbes story is true he only accounts for one tower.

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower.

It still does not account for both towers being wired with explosives. Nor does it explain how you could wire 50+ floors in 36 hours.

I think some people would of noticed people planting bombs in two giant buildings, and one smaller building.
The world trade centres had more comercial floor space than a large english city (manchester?) Now with all them people I think they might notice something.

Sorry, I don't buy it

[edit on 24/11/05 by JimmyCarterIsSmarter]

Military grade explosives are easily attached to maintenance/elevator shaft areas because they are very small in size compared to what most demolition companies would use.

And coincidently the Israeli Mossad agents who were caught on 9/11 and thereafter had traces of military grade explosives in the vans/trucks. Not to mention several floors of the WTC were vacant and under renovations and Bushfuks brother was in charge of WTC so access could be gained anytime.

It is painfully obvious that explosives were used to bring down WTC1,2&7 .... just watching the videos make it very clear.

I heard on Alex Jones the other day that that the only way for this buildings to collapse in 10 seconds is trough controlled demolitiion. If the buildings collapsed by itself like they would have us belive it would take, by calculations, over 40 seconds

any thoughts?

[edit on 24-11-2005 by nukunuku]

The North Tower at 7, 13.3, 14.5, and 22 seconds into its collapse.
Picture numbering by me :
1 - 2
3 - 4
These pictures seem to been taken from a helicopter to the north, which moved to the right between pic.1 and pic.2, then stopped, and the photographer was then zooming in and out a few times.
You clearly see in all 4 of them, the WTC 7 building.

At the nr.2, 13.3 sec picture, you see an immense outburst of debris originating from the north face of WTC 1 hitting WTC 7's south front. So that's cleared, that probably caused that huge center hole reported by a few firefighters later on. We still have not located any picture of that hole yet, however. But let's guess it was there for now.
That still doesn't give a reason for WTC 7 to collapse in the manner it did in the late afternoon. Such a heavy damage at the south front center would in fact logically cause WTC 7 to topple over to the south, and not fall straight down.
NIST knows this, and won't come out with a solid report on WTC 7 for a long time to come, they know we will fall all over them with a lot of scientific proof they know they will not be able to counter in any logical manner.

And that outburst is the explosive demolition of the highest SkyLobby floors, which were specially reinforced with thick CONCRETE floors which also had a lot of reinforcing steel beams to hold the elevator machinery and the AC machinery and a 5000 gallon NYFD water tank.
If it would have been a gravity collapse, the collapse would have stopped or slowed down there. And there is another set of reinforced concrete floors further down, the first SkyLobby, and that one also didn't stop or hinder the collapse.
It is clear, that that outburst came from the north face from those few highest SkyLobby floors, was a set of much heavier demolition charges, and was meant to demolish in one go, 2 buildings, WTC 6 and WTC 7. That went wrong, WTC 7 was only strifed, that's why they had to do such a sloppy job later on at it. You just see that spire sticking out above the center of that outburst, between those 2 huge pieces of debris trails going down on WTC 7. That spike turns up clearer in the next 2 pics, and perfectly clear in pic.4, just above the east penthouse roof. It is not the remnants of a piece of the center collumns, it is a very tall piece of north-west corner structure of WTC 1.

Do you see in pic. nr.3 that upside-down trapezium formed piece of dust cloud, on top of the mushroom cloud ?
That's the clear sign of the remnants of a very heavy demolition set, placed in the core elevator space far under the SkyLobby, to blow the backbone out of that SkyLobby. It was a shape charged set, so that the greatest explosive force was aimed upwards, under an angle of about 80 degrees. You see that angle in the leftover dust cloud form.

In pic. nr.1 you see the same shaped dustcloud remnants of the heavy charge which blew out the backbone of the toppling top. In nr. 2 you see it even better, in the center of the remaining building, rising up like a letter Y.

In pic. nr. 4 you see the dust cloud top of a second identical heavy shape charged demolition set, which just blew out the lowest SkyLobby floors.
Something went wrong at the north-west corner, the charges there didn't detonate in time. That's why that spire kept standing for a few more seconds.

You also can clearly see the parabolic upwards detonation cloud traces in pic.nr.1, clear sign of charges going off, which blew to whole top part of WTC 1 to smithereens, so it could not initiate a total topling of WTC 1 over a wide part of prime real estate of Manhattan.



The North Tower at about 8.5 seconds into its collapse.
This pic. was taken much more to the right, compared to the above other 4. Somewhere above West Broadway, 3 blocks to the north of WTC 7, which again is clearly to see in front of the collapsing WTC 1.
You clearly see the effect of that same heavy charge which took out the highest SkyLobby from above pic. nr.2, but now the blow originating from the west facade of WTC 1 (seen from the position of the photographer, ofcourse). You see the much longer reach of the accompanying dustcloud, than the dust cloud at the east facade. That debris took out a few of the front pillars of the WFC 2 and 3. Perhaps the plan was to also take out WFC 2 and 3. And all the stored files in those buildings.
They didn't dare to blow those 2 buildings up later in the afternoon, since they had observable minor damage.

Here is a very clear photo of mine from the remaining north-west corner spire with the remaining hot spots of the cutter charges clearly visible, and those are NOT compression heating points, as you can clearly see that the spire was not compressed, but in the process of being cut :



One falling piece of that spire is seen falling to the left, just above that dust cloud on the bottom left, with the thermite still burning on several spots, especially the ends.
Especially observe those smoke trails from the thermite.