11-12-2011, 01:04 PM
Thanks for that article. He raises some excellent questions. One of them about the heat under the pile might be (likely is) explained by the fact that when you mechanical shred, crush, grind, rip apart, 1.2 million tons of material enormous heat is released. That heat can explain a few of the observed phenomena... the huge billowing clouds carrying fine debris up into the sky and away from the site. No mystery there... this is basic Boyle's gas laws in play. Secondly the debris from the dissociated materials came mostly down and concentrated below the foot prints and so the heat was also concentrated in some locations. We do know that the pile continued to burn and was hot for months and months on the top and when they got down to the bottom of it, the the debris over top had acted as an insulator and help maintained the high temps at the bottom.
The high temperatures might be explained by a exothermic chemical reaction... many many them... such as fires or incendiaries such as thermite which continued on well after the collapse and were some how concentrated at the bottom and then covered by cooler non reacting material above. We can rule out fire because oxygen starvation under the pile would have extinguished such flames. So whatever WAS causing the heat at the base of the pile was a reacition which did not require a supply of atmospheric oxygen. Thermite can react without oxygen if enough heat is present to kick it off. The reaction draws the required oxygen from the iron oxide. The questions are... was thermite present... or could a similar reaction have been created by the building materials themselves? The thermite reaction requires iron oxide, aluminum and sulfer. All of these were present in WTC building materials. Yet it seems a stretch to imagine that the vioilet mixing and crushing could get these materials together to begin an exothermic reaction. But it's not impossible... and can't be ruled out because it seems unlikely. The notion that thermite was present and a cause of the destruction... or some other high temp process... seems to contradict at least in the case of the two towers what was observed... which was a top down destruction. How would the cause of this... a presumed high temp event end up underneath the pile? Why were there no signs of it on top of the pile where all that was observed was relatively cold unreacted (chemically) steel, mangled building materials and lots of dust, grit and pulverized concrete? We did not see the towers destroyed in the more understandable approach to demolition where the structure at the base is destroyed and gravity then collapse it down on itself (bottom up). Had this taken place we would expect to find the tell tale signs of the destruction of the columns at the base. But note... much of the perimeter (facade structure) was standing after then conclusion of the event... so these were not *undermined*. And photos of the site immediately after show the *stubs* of many of the core columns remaining after the collapse of the twin towers... so these were not *undermined*... plus we can see the core columns fail from Euler buckling AFTER the floors collapse/destroyed and the facade had peeled/feel away... indicating that they there failure was NOT the cause of the floor collapse.. more likely a consequence of it.
If one accepts the notion that the collapses were gravity driven... floor destructions... followed by dismantling of the frame which was unable to stand erect without the bracing that the floor system provided (this notion is resisted by most of the truth movement)... the use of heat to destroy the floors makes little sense. In a *CD* scenario of progressive floor destruction from top to bottom... one would expect to witness multiple sequenced explosions on each floor which shattered them. These explosions showed no signs of dismembering the structure in a top down sequence as far as I can see anyway. A gravity driven collapse of what ever cause... would have to displace the 18,000 cu yards of air between each floor and this would be forced away from the towers and would carry with it dust and lighter debris and appear as mass ejections... because it WAS mass ejections... Whether the cause was ALSO explosives has yet to be demonstrated... but collapsing mass within the chute of the walls would mostly definitely cause over pressure of air and outward mass dsibursal of light debris.
One needs to understand that what was observed WAS related to the size, configuration, construction and mass of those buildings.
The high temperatures might be explained by a exothermic chemical reaction... many many them... such as fires or incendiaries such as thermite which continued on well after the collapse and were some how concentrated at the bottom and then covered by cooler non reacting material above. We can rule out fire because oxygen starvation under the pile would have extinguished such flames. So whatever WAS causing the heat at the base of the pile was a reacition which did not require a supply of atmospheric oxygen. Thermite can react without oxygen if enough heat is present to kick it off. The reaction draws the required oxygen from the iron oxide. The questions are... was thermite present... or could a similar reaction have been created by the building materials themselves? The thermite reaction requires iron oxide, aluminum and sulfer. All of these were present in WTC building materials. Yet it seems a stretch to imagine that the vioilet mixing and crushing could get these materials together to begin an exothermic reaction. But it's not impossible... and can't be ruled out because it seems unlikely. The notion that thermite was present and a cause of the destruction... or some other high temp process... seems to contradict at least in the case of the two towers what was observed... which was a top down destruction. How would the cause of this... a presumed high temp event end up underneath the pile? Why were there no signs of it on top of the pile where all that was observed was relatively cold unreacted (chemically) steel, mangled building materials and lots of dust, grit and pulverized concrete? We did not see the towers destroyed in the more understandable approach to demolition where the structure at the base is destroyed and gravity then collapse it down on itself (bottom up). Had this taken place we would expect to find the tell tale signs of the destruction of the columns at the base. But note... much of the perimeter (facade structure) was standing after then conclusion of the event... so these were not *undermined*. And photos of the site immediately after show the *stubs* of many of the core columns remaining after the collapse of the twin towers... so these were not *undermined*... plus we can see the core columns fail from Euler buckling AFTER the floors collapse/destroyed and the facade had peeled/feel away... indicating that they there failure was NOT the cause of the floor collapse.. more likely a consequence of it.
If one accepts the notion that the collapses were gravity driven... floor destructions... followed by dismantling of the frame which was unable to stand erect without the bracing that the floor system provided (this notion is resisted by most of the truth movement)... the use of heat to destroy the floors makes little sense. In a *CD* scenario of progressive floor destruction from top to bottom... one would expect to witness multiple sequenced explosions on each floor which shattered them. These explosions showed no signs of dismembering the structure in a top down sequence as far as I can see anyway. A gravity driven collapse of what ever cause... would have to displace the 18,000 cu yards of air between each floor and this would be forced away from the towers and would carry with it dust and lighter debris and appear as mass ejections... because it WAS mass ejections... Whether the cause was ALSO explosives has yet to be demonstrated... but collapsing mass within the chute of the walls would mostly definitely cause over pressure of air and outward mass dsibursal of light debris.
One needs to understand that what was observed WAS related to the size, configuration, construction and mass of those buildings.