Deep Politics Forum

Lemkin,

Stop spamming the threads with links. Can't you post anything original? All you do is repeat what someone else says/writes... your continual appeal to (unproven) experts... such as all manner of people publishing on the www. You want to shut down any discussion if it doesn't conform to your own views and have no problem in insulting people calling them Sunstein agents or dis info agents. In my case I can assure you it is pure hooey. While you may not agree with what I write or present, these sorts of arguments are garbage and undignified and come from people who can't or won't discuss the facts of the substance.

You really need to change your approach and your manners.

I find it fascinating that in the video, he claimed that CDI was involved. Nukes or not, I have for years believed that the link between OK City and 911 is Controlled Demolition Incorporated.
[URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1473-Building-a-Case-Against-Controlled-Demolition-Inc."]https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?1473-Building-a-Case-Against-Controlled-Demolition-Inc.
A[/URL] small Maryland based family business...Not public...the top in its field...a 40 year history of government contracts...brought in to clean up and demolish the Murrah building in OKC...Prime contractor in the clean up of Ground Zero. Known worldwide as the best demolition company available. If anyone could have pulled off bringing down the towers and 7 into their own footprints all on the same day, CDI could.

Many witnesses [will list some] and many photos [will post some] show that there was definitely molten [>2750F] steel in the basements and debris of WTC 1,2 and most suspiciously 7! What was seen was FLOWING liquid steel in places and later lemon to light yellow [see temperature chart] steel for up to 3-4 months! Nothing but Thermate/thermite or nanotermate/mite could have ever brought steel to those temperatures [other than directed beam or nuclear devices]. I strongly favor nanothermite, as its residue was clearly found in all the dust.

Orling's unzip theory is a cover IMHO for the official version and explains NONE fo the annomalies - not the pyroclastic cloud; not the molten metal; not the ejected beams; not the explosions seen and heard; not the location of GPS-autopilot-guided planes into the WTC 1 and 2; and on and on. His is a post-facto excuse for the official pancake theory - only in his varient the members 'unzipped' and then pancaked. It defies what the evidence is and worse it defies PHYSICS!

Lemkin rants:

"... unzip theory is a cover IMHO for the official version and explains NONE fo the annomalies - not the pyroclastic cloud; not the molten metal; not the ejected beams; not the explosions seen and heard; not the location of GPS-autopilot-guided planes into the WTC 1 and 2; and on and on. His is a post-facto excuse for the official pancake theory - only in his varient the members 'unzipped' and then pancaked. It defies what the evidence is and worse it defies PHYSICS!."

My theory is not *unzip* in either case. Never used the term nor is how I proposed the collapse occurred an unzippering of anything.

My theory DOES suggest an explanation for the huge dust clouds. They arose post collapse driven by 2 main factors... the extreme heat that was generated by the friction of communition of the materials which heated the air and billows up... much the way hot gas and smoke rise up from any fire. The second cause of the motion of these clouds was the fact that the collapse pulled a negative air pressure above (behind) it as it came rapidly down... at about 65 mph or so
causing cooler clean air to rush in and down... like the are air pulled in behind a speeding car. This air of course was stopped by the hot dusty debris pile and disbursed laterally carrying the light hot dust with it which heated the air and caused it to billow outward. Boyle's gas laws at work.

The identification of kind of molten material is imprecise at best. In the south tower the color cannot be used because the images are no color corrected, ther was dust in the air, refraction and a low sun angle all of which would change / influence the color of materials seen. This is no different from the effect of a yellow, purple, orange or red sky.. or even blue related to sun's angle and atmospheric conditions (dust etc.). You can find images on the www of waterfalls which appear orange as a result of optics... and no one would claim that the river was molten steel from that image. If the material pouring out was aluminum, for example, it would mean much lower temperatures. You can't identity chemicals from *uncontrolled* images.

The same applies to the metal below grade. But here the images are few and it's mostly testimony. We don't know the quantity or how long this lasted. Red hot metal is not liquid metal. Beams were not dripping liquid metal. I've seen no images of the end of a beam turning to liquid and dripping.

The NASA imagery DOES show 3 concentrated locations of extreme temps. My hunch is that the elevated temps were the result of the heat released from friction as the materials were ground up. You had hundreds of thousands of tons of materials grinding and colliding and abrading and this releases heat... just as file metal does. Lots of heat. Perhaps this heat became concentrated and insulated by the pile. There is also the possibility of exothermic reactions between ground building materials.. rust, alum, GWB (sulfur) water, pressure and so on. The so called meteorite is the result of the natural process of pressure acting on materials in the presence of water and ground up portland cement and GWB. If the heat was caused from friction of destruction of the slabs etc. then it would be expected to produce similiar signatures when a threshold is reached. Small structures collapsing don't present those threshold conditions... and many don't even collapse... such as bldgs 5,6,7.... which where destroyed from falling debris and fires... not self collapse.

Yes there were many explosions heard that day... all sorts of electrical gear and mechanical equipment was exploding when the system went outside spec.... overheated fire extinguishers... electrical transformers and so forth. There was a huge explosive sound down the street from me 2 weeks ago when a relatively small utility pole mounted transfer exploded. People rushed into the street thinking it was a bomb.. as they are trained from TV and Hollywood to associated loud explosive sounds with bombs... not exploding electrical equipment.

My theory is not a pancake theory for the collapse of the twins. It does not propose entire slabs coming un connected and falling in sequence. The theory was nicknamed ROOSD by someone else.. runaway open office space destruction... and refers to the FLOW and crushing of the floors in sequence by a growing and gathering mass of floor and other building rubble. The facade was not exploded off, but lost it lateral bracing from the floor destruction and was developing an increasingly exaggerated slenderness ratio and became unstable and susceptible to the lateral forces of the growing debris rubble / avalanching inside the *caging* of the facade.. as the pressure exerted by grain on the walls of a silo. The facade was pushed over, burst at it seams, fell or toppled away in panel configurations from a single 10'x36' panel to multiple ones which were as high as 12 floors and almost as wide as the tower itself. Of course this was not organized but violent and chaotic.

Nothing I have proposed defies evidence of physics. To the contrary it is based ON physics, engineering (applied physics) and the mappings/observations of the movements seen... and the rubble found. Physics tells us that the columns could not be crushed. And they weren't... the frame broke at the weakest points - the joints and splices which were bolted together... when subjected to excessive lateral forces and the structure's materials and their loads were disengaged from their load paths... and were free to act (gravity and F=MA) on the frame's joints.

It's certainly a good hypothesis that the planes were on some sort of autopilot or pre programmed flight path. This is entirely possible with the technology which existed at the time. The ROOSD collapse theory is only about threshold conditions manifesting in the twin towers which led to the destructive unstoppable ROOSD process once begun. That process could be initiated by exploding some of the columns or cutting them with devices. But there is evidence of this sort of intervention. There is evidence that the planes destroyed columns... reducing the columns available to support the floors above the crash zone... added some quantity of jet A fuel and fires to the remaining columns. With the loss of some columns at the strike zones the remaining ones carried additional redistributed loads effectively reducing their reserve strength... a double whammy... additional redistributed loads and lowering or strength from heat.

The collapse of the top of WTC 2 shows bucking in the remaining core columns in the region of the plane strike (*horseshoe column* is one example). This extreme example of buckling shows that the lower portion was still restrained laterally and that extremely loads presented... the result of loss of strength of the remaining core columns. The *horseshoe column* was one of the last remaining column in the core region of the strike zone and it could not support the entire load (100,000 tons) of the 32 floors above and folded like a a piece of clay or rubber. That's physics! Now 32 floors came crashing into the lower 78... and ROOSD was on!

[URL="http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf"]URL HERE
[/URL]
This and much much more in a 47 page report/scientific paper with references and photos, videos at url above...no hot zippers of Mr. Orling who cries spamming when anyone refutes his nonsense and when he tries to silence the critics of the official version he sanctifies it his egocentric and self-serving 'you wouldn't understand, because are not an architect. Funny how most architects who have looked at this are not inclined to believe in his 'theory' [really a cover for the official pancake theory], but join or support the ideas found in AE-For911Truth. And, one does NOT have to be an architect nor a scientist, physicist, chemist or anything special to understand the general principles here - and which evidence is in accord with 1] the evidence and 2] physical laws of the universe. The official version is not...and IMO the unzip theory of Orling is also NOT.

1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
There are several published observations of molten metal in the basements of all three
buildings, WTC 1, 2 ("Twin Towers") and 7. For example, Dr. Keith Eaton toured Ground Zero
and stated in The Structural Engineer,
They showed us many fascinating slides' [Eaton] continued, ranging from molten
metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared
and bent in the disaster'. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6; emphasis added.)
The existence of molten metal at Ground Zero was reported by several observers (see first
photograph above), including Greg Fuchek:
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees
Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. "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," Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002)
Sarah Atlas was part of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue and
was one of the first on the scene at Ground Zero with her canine partner Anna. She reported in
Penn Arts and Sciences, summer 2002,
Nobody's going to be alive.' Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins
still settling beneath her feet. (Penn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Notice that the molten metal (probably not steel alone; see discussion below) was flowing down
in the rubble pile early on; so it is not the case that the molten metal pools formed due to
subterranean fires after the collapses.
Video clips provide further eyewitness evidence regarding this extremely hot metal at
ground zero: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...3573302287 and
http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video...uality.wmv .
The observer (second video) notes that the observed surface of this metal is still reddishorange
some six weeks after 9-11. This implies a large quantity of a metal with fairly low heat
conductivity and a relatively large heat capacity (e.g., iron is more likely than aluminum) even in
an underground location. Like magma in a volcanic cone, such metal might remain hot and
molten for a long time -- once the metal is sufficiently hot to melt in large quantities and then
kept in a fairly-well insulated underground location. Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite
reactions may well have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at
very high temperatures initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, various
materials entrained in the molten metal pools will continue to undergo exothermic reactions
which would tend to keep the pools hot for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. Any
thermite cutter charges which did not ignite during the collapse could also contribute to the
prolonged heating.
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific
analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.
I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cuttercharges
such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to
melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum
powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the
thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate
steel which it contacts while reacting. Here is the thermite-reaction equation for a typical
mixture of aluminum powder iron oxide powder:
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), DH = − 853.5 kJ/mole.
Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered,
even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite, which we call "thermate," will
accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed
in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the
FEMA report. (FEMA, 2002; see also,
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...index.html.) On the other hand,
falling buildings (absent incendiaries such as thermite) have insufficient directed energy to result
in melting of large quantities of metal; any particles of molten metal somehow formed during
collapse will not coalesce into molten pools of metal!
The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams
-- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working
with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of
people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.
(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: "In no instance did NIST report
that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
None of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearly
a significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of the
composition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel. This
could well become an experiment crucis.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt
steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media
report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel
burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The
temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not
capable of melting steel.
In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a premixed
flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not
mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when
the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse
flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat
intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for
burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt
steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse
flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the
best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to
650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse
flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel
begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,
1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss
of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this
low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even
with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses
imposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
We will return to the question of fire-induced stresses and WTC collapses later.
Even without a direct elemental analysis, we can rule out some metals based on
available data. The photograph in the introduction shows a chunk of hot metal being extracted at
ground zero. The hottest portion of the chunk is the lower portion, which was deepest down in
the slag, and the metal is seen to be yellow-hot, certainly above cherry-red hot. The following
table (see http://www.processassociates.com/process...tcolor.htm ) provides data regarding
the melting temperatures of lead, aluminum, structural steel and iron, along with approximate
metal temperatures by color. Note that the approximate temperature of a hot metal is given by its
color, quite independent of the composition of the metal. (A notable exception is falling 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 that with the conditions described in the previous sentence (which prevailed at the
WTC on 9/11), falling liquid aluminum will appear silvery-gray. Rapid oxidation of the hot
flowing aluminum will contribute to the observed appearance. [Experiments: Jones, 2006])

continues for about another 40 pages...see url above.

There are over 250,000 architects in the USA. AE911T has attracted 1,500+ signers and not all of them agree with explosive controlled demolition. All of them want a new investigation.

Impossible for steel beams to be both solid and their ends dripping melted steel.

The residual heat of trillions of calories in more than a million tons of debris would take months to even cool a few degrees. This debris was also insulating the lowest reaches where the hottest temps were found.

I don't think your evidence has been vetted and much of it a unreliable witness testimony.

"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse
flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the
best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to
650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse
flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke...."

Some things burn with thick black smoke and it doesn't have to be fuel rich or oxygen starved. What was likely burning black in the twin towers was:

plastic
carpets
vat flooring
upholstery
transformer oil

Who says the WTC fires were "fuel rich"?

he writes:

"Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of
the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific
analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail."

emphasis mine

or perhaps other melted metals with impurities

Peter,

The article you cited in #25 is very persuasive. The iron rich spheres found in the dust could never have been formed in the few seconds of the collapse. Friction? Give me a break.

Better to change the subject. Do you realize how many architects there are?

You can produce iron microsphere by lighting steel wool with a match! The presence of iron micro spheres can be explained by many mechanical processes...

Lauren you can be convinced because you are ignorant of chemistry and physics and when you read something which sounds scientific and rigorous with end notes and foot notes you buy the farm.

You need to bone up on your science, physics, chemistry and engineering or simply recognize that you are incapable of evaluating technical arguments which are above your pay grade.

I seem to recall that a Danish scienrist, in microscopic analyses, had found thermite itself in the dust from 9/11. Couldn't locate post on this; it was a few months ago.

However, Lauren Johnson posted this on July 25, 2012, an article titled "The Explosive Nature of Nanothermite" by Kevin Ryan (Post #1):

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ust+9%2F11

Adele