Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site

[Reef]

[Neuge]

Passively with active knowledge of the plot, or passively by incompetence to recognize and respond to the threat?

[Reef]

active knowledge of the plot

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_ii.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Question 1:

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

Question 2:

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

Question 3:

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park this web page is now at http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_137.htm.

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

[/ QUOTE ]

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, so when you apply heat to a steel structure the heat spreads quickly. So the heat from the fires would have spread through the entire steel structure of each tower. The Twin Towers contained 200,000 tons of steel.

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

I'm really looking for all the scientific data I can to prove this thing one way or another .. but for now I think the US govt played a passive role in 9/11 happening.

[Reef]

Also, what about Motives?

$2.2 billion insurance payout to the owner of the World Trade Center, Larry Silverstein who obtained the lease of the buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history the complex had changed ownership.

====
The president himself declared that the attacks provide "a great opportunity." Donald Rumsfeld stated that 9/11 created "the kind of opportunities that World War II offered, to refashion the world." Condoleeza Rice had said the same thing in mind, telling senior members of the National Security Council to "think about 'how do you capitalize on these opportunities' to fundamentally change...the shape of the world." The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued by the Bush administration in September 2002, said: "The events of September 11, 2001, opened vast, new opportunities."

====
The war on Taliban

Bush administrations desire to attack Afghanistan so as to replace the Taliban with a US-friendly government in order to further US economic and geopolitical aims. The US war in Afghanistan began less than a month after 9/11

====
The Plan To Attack Iraq

The Bush administration's attack on Iraq in 2003 is probably the issue on which the 9/11 Commission has been regarded as the most critical, stating that it found no evidence of "collaborative operational relationship" between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's Iraq and no evidence, in particular, "that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States"

Given the fact that Bush and Cheney continued to insist on the existence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the Commission did in this case report something contrary to the public position of the White House.

==
In the fall of 2000, a document entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses was published by an organization calling itself the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This organization was formed by individuals who were members or at least supporters of the Reagan and Bush I administration, some of whom would go on to be central figures in the Bush II administration.

This PNAC document, argues that it is necessary for defense spending to be greatly increased if the "American peace is to be maintained, and expanded," because this Pax Americana "must have a secure foundation on unquestioned U.S. military preeminence."

From the article, “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.”

====

benefit the arms manufacturing and oil industries

---

Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and President Bush's surge in political popularity

---

Halliburton's defense contracts for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
---

<font color="red"> anyone up for some False Flag Terrorism? </font>

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not certain of the explosives.. trying to be as objective as possible. I really dont like the "global collapse ensued" line. I'd really like to see studies on this from a neutral 3rd party that says A caused B that caused C with supporting facts (maybe with tests on the exact same graded steel and burning fuel, etc)

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not certain of the explosives.. trying to be as objective as possible. I really dont like the "global collapse ensued" line. I'd really like to see studies on this from a neutral 3rd party that says A caused B that caused C with supporting facts (maybe with tests on the exact same graded steel and burning fuel, etc)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but that is stupid. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so far none has been provided that gets this out of the kook realm. We've already spent too much tax money on this and spending more for stupid studies to prove that the current story is correct or not is a waste.

An interesting question may be why people believe there is something sinister here, but basically you've joined the new Holocaust deniers club.

[AquaSwing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
active knowledge of the plot

[/ QUOTE ]
So you disagree that the buildings were brought down by explosives, which is Nielsio's claim in this thread?

[/ QUOTE ]
What I don't understand about the explosives theory is why bring the buildings down during the event? What does that accomplish?

On the morning of 9/11 before the towers fell I was looking at the destruction and told the others that were watching around me, "Man, NY's gonna have to look at that for weeks before they can bring the buildings down." I would think they would WANT the buildings to stand as a reminder. Once they fell there was a giant pile of crap and they erected those two lights and that was it.

[CORed]

I'm going to take the position that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To me, the claim that people in the US government conspired to demolish the WTC towers and staged a plane hijacking and flew those planes into the towers to cover up the demolition is an extraordinary claim. For me to even begin to take such a claim seriously, I would need significant affirmative evidence that such a thing happened. Since the collapses quickly followed the crashes and fires, I'm satisfied, unless shown convincing evidence that something different happened, that the crashes and fires were the cause of the collapses. When you hear hoofbeats, think of horses before zebras (well, unless your in the Serengeti, anyway).

I find hand-waving arguments about how the crash and fire couldn't possibly have caused the buildings to collapse entirely unconvincing. Blobs of orange liquid dripping in the building similarly don't mean much. "It couldn't have been aluminum, so it had to be steel." Oh rly? Not jet fuel? Not burning plastic on fire? Not an optical illusion caused by smoke and flame?. Reports of "explosions" before the collapse are similarly unconvincing. There were some loud noises before the building collapsed. What a shock! Could you really tell the difference between a girder breaking and a carefully placed charge of C-4 going off?

Then of course we have the photographs with the little puffs of dust or smoke coming out the windows. Proof! Proof I tell you! that there were explosives going off. Or that the collapsing building pushed some air out the windows. Take your pick. But remove your tinfoil hat first, pleas.