I'll do my best to address your questions...
The "Pull it" comment is a common phrase on the EAST
Coast with firefighters, the two or three people you quote all mention they investigated
WEST coast. I have been told this by people who are close to firefighters on the East Coast. Beyond that I know nothing about the phrase.
Valhall's work can be found through the ATS google search, I don't know what the url is and I don't remember if it's in the big wtc thread or not.
Sorry about that.
Regarding what she worked out: She calculated whether or not the fires that burned could have been hot enough to degrade/melt the steel enough to
cause it to fail. Understand that to an Engineer (which she is) steel is "melted" when it is no longer able to hold its shape and fails, this has
nothing to do with turning into a liquid like melted ice turning into water for example.
She gathered the exact specs on ALL the steel used as structure material in the buildings and the exact specs on the fuel in the jets, the typical
contents of the offices in the building so she would have both sides of the equation: The material being burned and the fuel that fed the fire.
Based on these calculations she determined that YES the fire would be hot enough, by a fair margin, to "melt the structural components of the
buildings. She did this using strict scientific method and precise calculus.
You ask if the buildings' failing structure would require less explosives to be set.
I don't think it matters. Number one if you wanted to make SURE the buildings fell you wouldn't count on a "maybe"... Maybe the fires and damage
will drop them easier maybe they won't.
Regardless of the amount of explosives it's still one HECK OF JOB even if you cut the amount of explosive in half. These buildings were HUGE and very
well built. The amount of explosives isn't so much the point as the SURVEYS required to select the EXACT points of the structural joints you have to
place the explosives for them to work. Then
you have cut the concrete away to place the directional charges against the steel re-bar.
It's the re-bar you have to cut on order to drop the building and the concrete can't be in the way or it will insulate the re-bar from most of the
pressure from the explosive charges.
Add to that, the time it takes to do the calculations to make sure you have enough explosive pointed in the right direction and you have DAYS of work
even if you cut the job in half counting on the impact damage and fires to perform the other half for you.
I will NEVER
believe this was done the day of the attacks. Is it possible it was done before
the attacks? Sure it is. Is it likely? Not
IMHO. People would have noticed all that work going on. The WTC had foot traffic and a train station in it's lower levels not to mention top of
not only employed by the building management but most of the companies who were tenants had security teams on site after the
previous terrorist attack. These security professionals would have been all over people cutting into the support structures and planting
Even if they were shown authorization for the work the EXPLOSIVE bit would have raised millions of red flags and the news would've been all over it
seeing as how it was bombed a few years earier. Explosives lashed and taped to the STRUCTURAL SUPPORT COLUMNS just aren't part of typical
maintenance. You know?
It's a HUGE mystery to me now that we have solid evidence
that there was molten steel
present at the site after 9/11. That's
the big deal in my mind.
There really is no reason
for the rancor and acidic words here my man. If WCIP isn't convinced, ridicule and sarcastic
degridation certainly isn't going to change his mind. If frustration has got the better of you, it's best to move on to a different topic IMHO.
But on to your points...
Professor Jones does not claim to be an expert in structural engineering but he for dam sure an expert in mathematics, thermodynamics, and "stuff
Aditionally he is not
"claiming anything" or declaring anything, all he is doing is presenting a hypothesis
that he thinks should be
proven or disproven using the scientific method. I agree with him 100% on that point.
I do not "buy" his hypothesis at all but I certainly agree it has opened a whole new can of worms surrounding the collapse of the buildings ONLY
because of the molten steel issue.
I am NOT impressed with the similarity between the way WTC 7 fell and the videos of the "imploded buildings". That just isn't enough for me to get
worked up over. The molten steel certainly is. There are very FEW processes that can cause the heat required to melt steel to liquid like that. The
explosive thermite is among the most common other than smelting.
Well I hope this explains my perspective a little better and I am going to try to track down Prof. Jones after the holiday and see if he'll come on
and share his FULL side of the story.
[edit on 11-23-2005 by Springer]