Thanks for the interesting comments,pd, bgates and salo_t. I look forward to you responding further. I can’t believe I had never heard of this theory before this week. I also don’t have any idea who would have planned this. Maybe the terrorists put the bombs in the building as a backup plan, in case the plane didn’t make them go down. And the politicians just allowed it to happen.
Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel used in the WTCs, wrote this letter to NIST.
He writes “the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of “experts” making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). ….
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. ”
Kevin Ryan was fired.
Hot fires are aglow, like the Windsor fire in the photo above. They are bright yellow. Cool fires are black, because combustion is incomplete. The WTC fires were under 500 degrees Celsius. I am most troubled by the fire theory because it does not add up. Where is the fireball burning for days on end? A low temp fire burning for one hour can not destroy such a strong building as the WTC.
Remember that the WTC was very strong. It swayed in the wind, and the people on the top floor often got motion sick. If any impact could topple it, the thing would have fallen over, not straight down.
Further problems with the theory that the fire melted steel enough to cause a structural failure is:
1) kerose burns at 140 degrees, not hot enough to melt steel. Keep in mind the difference between temperature and heat. Putting 4 logs in a fire raises the amount of heat, but not the temperature. Likewise, the kerosene fuel from the airplane did not raise the temperature of the fire but spread the heat to a larger area. Still, the temperature was not nearly hot enough to compromise the steel.
“No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel. In point of fact, most of the fuel in the jets was contained in their wing tanks. The thin aluminum of the tanks was pierced or stripped as the airplanes penetrated the walls of the towers, and the result was the huge fireball which was seen on national TV, where most of this fuel was burned.”
2) the 2nd tower was hit by a plane which lost half its fuel, so there was only half the jet fuel as in the first tower. Yet it was the first tower to fall (“The Wrong Tower Fell First”)
3) other stell towers in the world burned for several days and did not fall, yet this one fell in less than one hour; the heat generated from kerosene and burning office equipment is not hot enough to melt steel in one hour; the Windsor building fire was 800 degrees C, so you can see the amount of flames that are generated by a fire of such a high temperature. The WTC fire was just a baby fire compared to that, much shorter, not as hot according to firefighter accounts and also the photos.
4) firefighters report only small isolated fires
5) I saw only soot (evidence of low heat fires) and lots of smoke, but nothing like the inferno of the Windsor fire in the photo above
6) there are too many survivors at the level of the plane impact. No way could all those people have survived if the plane hit at the alleged 800 degree Celsius. 20 minutes after impact, employees on floors 93-93 were evacuating. This was possible because the kerose burnt off quickly, some was dropped outside upon impact to the building, and the fires in the building were small, isolated, and of low temperature.
Physics laws are violated in the offical pancaking explanation, because the building collapsed at the speed of gravity, of free fall. Pancaking is not possible at the speed of gravity, because the resistance of the lower floors, where fire had not done any damage, would have slowed the fall. So it is against the laws of physics that pancaking can occur at the speed of gravity. So either the building did not pancake, or it took longer to fall than the data and eyewitness and video accounts.
Although the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a smaller jet, this larger jet could have shook the foundation of the building, causing it to sway and crash. Yet that is not how the building came down. The fire story is just too far fetched, especially when the firefighters who were in the building tell us that the fires were small and isolated. One photo of a woman standing near the opening of the WTC shows only black smoke. Where is the large fireball that supposedly melted steel?
Then there’s the 9/11 ABC 20/20 interview with Rudi Giuliani, where he says he was told to get out of the towers because they would collapse. No tower had ever collapsed before due to heat, so why would anyone even say that?
It’s possible that the terrorists also placed bombs inside the building, so the impact of planes started the demolition process.
