Physicist says heat substance felled WTC

[jimmydean]

Link (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635198488,00.htm)



Physicist says heat substance felled WTC

Extremely hot fires caused structures to fail, BYU expert says
By Suzanne Dean
For the Deseret Morning News
EPHRAIM — A Brigham Young University physicist said he now believes an incendiary substance called thermite, bolstered by sulfur, was used to generate exceptionally hot fires at the World Trade Center on 9/11, causing the structural steel to fail and the buildings to collapse.
"It looks like thermite with sulfur added, which really is a very clever idea," Steven Jones, professor of physics at BYU, told a meeting of the Utah Academy of Science, Arts and Letters at Snow College Friday.
The government requires standard explosives to contain tag elements enabling them to be traced back to their manufacturers. But no tags are required in aluminum and iron oxide, the materials used to make thermite, he said. Nor, he said, are tags required in sulfur.
Jones is co-chairman, with James H. Fetzer, a distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Minnesota of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a group of college faculty members who believe conspirators other than pilots of the planes were directly involved in bringing down New York's Trade Towers.
The group, which Jones said has 200 members, maintains a Web site at www.st911.org. A 40-page paper by Jones, along with other peer-reviewed and non-reviewed academic papers, are posted on the site.
Last year, Jones presented various arguments for his theory that explosives or incendiary devices were planted in the Trade Towers, and in WTC 7, a smaller building in the Trade Center complex, and that those materials, not planes crashing into the buildings, caused the buildings to collapse.
At that time, he mentioned thermite as the possible explosive or incendiary agent. But Friday, he said he is increasingly convinced that thermite and sulfur were the root causes of the 9/11 disaster.
He told college professors and graduate students from throughout Utah gathered for the academy meeting that while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
He ticked off several pieces of evidence for his thermite fire theory:
First, he said, video showed a yellow, molten substance splashing off the side of the south Trade Tower about 50 minutes after an airplane hit it and a few minutes before it collapsed. Government investigators ruled out the possibility of melting steel being the source of the material because of the unlikelihood of steel melting. The investigators said the molten material must have been aluminum from the plane.
But, said Jones, molten aluminum is silvery. It never turns yellow. The substance observed in the videos "just isn't aluminum," he said. But, he said, thermite can cause steel to melt and become yellowish.
Second, he cited video pictures showing white ash rising from the south tower near the dripping, liquefied metal. When thermite burns, Jones said, it releases aluminum-oxide ash. The presence of both yellow-white molten iron and aluminum oxide ash "are signature characteristics of a thermite reaction," he said.
Another item of evidence, Jones said, is the fact that sulfur traces were found in structural steel recovered from the Trade Towers. Jones quoted the New York Times as saying sulfidization in the recovered steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the (official) investigation." But, he said, sulfidization fits the theory that sulfur was combined with thermite to make the thermite burn even hotter than it ordinarily would.
Jones said a piece of building wreckage had a gray substance on the outside that at one point had obviously been a dripping molten metal or liquid. He said that after thermite turns steel or iron into a molten form, and the metal hardens, it is gray.
He added that pools of molten metal were found beneath both trade towers and the 47-story WTC 7. That fact, he said, was never discussed in official investigation reports.
And even though WTC 7 was not connected to the Trade Towers — in fact, there was another building between it and the towers —and even though it was never hit by a plane, it collapsed. That suggests, he said, that it came down because a thermite fire caused its structural steel to fail.
Jones said his studies are confined to physical causes of the collapses, and he doesn't like to speculate about who might have entered the buildings and placed thermite and sulfur. But he said 10 to 20 people "in the know," plus other people who didn't know what they were doing but did what they were told, could have placed incendiary packages over several weeks.

[Tenchiro]

http://www.geocities.com/xpatriot_1999/blog_archives/Jaeme_tinfoil_hat_01sm.JPG
This article approved by the
Tinfoil Haberdasher Society

[RenegadeRick]

http://www.geocities.com/xpatriot_1999/blog_archives/Jaeme_tinfoil_hat_01sm.JPG
This article approved by the
Tinfoil Haberdasher Society

Tinfoil won't protect you from a thermite and sulfur blaze!

But really... what else could explain the collapse of WTC 7?

[OrthoPT]

Umm... and alien spaceship hiding just next to the sun might have melted the towers with a superpowerful laser beam. Think about it. It's the perfect caper; everyone knows you're not supposed to look directly at the sun. And they probably simulated the two jetliners with holograms! :clue:

[Transcend]

#7 didn't just fall down in order not to be the odd man out.

[LordOpie]

A tin foil hat is just throwing fuel on the thermite.

[BurlyShirley]

...at what point did it become reasonable to start tossing out accusations simply because you dont have answers?

[Changleen]

...at what point did it become reasonable to start tossing out accusations simply because you dont have answers?I think it was actually 9/11/02.

[LordOpie]

...at what point did it become reasonable to start tossing out accusations simply because you dont have answers?
about 2000 years ago.

[Westy]

Thermite burns fast and hot and can cut right through steel. That is why it took hours to down the towers.

[Tenchiro]

Tinfoil won't protect you from a thermite and sulfur blaze!

But really... what else could explain the collapse of WTC 7?

I don't know. But unlike many people who also don't know, I don't feel compelled to make stuff up to make myself feel better.

While the video of the collapse makes it look very clean and controlled. The fact is, this is the first modern skyscraper to collapse solely from fire and not have recently been hit by a plane. Maybe that is how they fail? We won't know until it happens again.

All this conspiracy crap is basically just like religion, for most of our history nobody knew anything about what makes things happen, so they invented god to explain the things they didn't understand. Why is the sky blue? God made it so. Why does it rain? Oh yeah, that is god also.

It is more exciting for people to make up conspiracy theories and pretend they are the heroes of an action movie. Where they are the only thing capable of exposing some great evil and saving the day.

[H8R]

Thermite burns fast and hot and can cut right through steel. That is why it took hours to down the towers.

Where as kerosene, (jet fuel) in the best circumstances, gets nowhere near hot enough to even melt mild steel, let alone the high strength steel used in the towers - rated to burn at way higher temps then the jet fuel or any other combustible substance that was in that building for hours on end.


But that doesn't mean you throw in a scenario that cannot be proven. That doesn't help anyone.

[Changleen]

What about the Gold? People were stealing the Gold. You know who likes gold don'tcha?

[jimmydean]

I just thought it was one of the more logical theories offered. I don't see how the jet fuel had any impact on WTC7 (or the north and south for that matter).

I don't need answers to make myself feel better, but I'm not buying what the POTUS has said at this point either.

[Transcend]

The conspiracies are pretty nutty for the most part, granted. Jet fuel, however, doesn't burn hot enough to burn the grade of steel in the tower.

Imaginary jet fuel doesn't burn down a building that wasn't hit, and had another building between it and the towers.

1 + 1 != 2 in this case.

[Changleen]

:stupid: (@ Jimmy)

The official theory is the least credible of all. Even the alien theory makes more sense than the gubment one.

[Transcend]

:stupid:

The official theory is the least credible of all. Even the alien theory makes more sense than the gubment one.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/story.sahaf.mon.jpg

"They do not even have control over themselves! Do not believe them!"

"You have ruined the reputation of the American people in the most terrible way! Shame on you!"

[Changleen]

I loved that guy. He was so cool.

Edit: Gah, I've run out of Karma to hit you with.

[Transcend]

I loved that guy. He was so cool.

They really need a cartoon based on him. It would be hilarious. He is a gold mine of comedy.

Fun fact: he was captured after Baghdad fell, they released him claiming he wasn't dangerous (or sane, I'd imagine). He has done a few interviews now on a few programs. He claims he was doing his duty to the end, and that his information was not faulty, the translations were!

Good to see he hasn't given up his day job. :weee:

[Changleen]

They really need a cartoon based on him. It would be hilarious.

Fun fact: he was captured after Baghdad fell, they released him claiming he wasn't dangerous (or sane, I'd imagine). He has done a few interviews now on a few programs. He claims he was doing his duty to the end, and that his information was not faulty, the translations were!

Good to see he hasn't given up his day job. :weee:I think they should make him an anchor on Fox. That'd be awesome.

[Transcend]

I think they should make him an anchor on Fox. That'd be awesome.

Oh hell, he could be the counterpoint guy. You know, the guy the networks bring in to harp on to boost the ratings with their core audience (think any Liberal on Fox News).

A network should have him on a program with John Stewart. They would get along like a house on fire.

oh hell, this quote is just funny.

"We will slaughter them, Bush Jr. and his international gang of bastards!"

[Changleen]

Are you getting this from that site that was up when he was on TV everyday? I can't remember the URL, just that it was reallllyy long.

[Transcend]

Are you getting this from that site that was up when he was on TV everyday? I can't remember the URL, just that it was reallllyy long.

I ripped the entire site. It is probably still up though, they sell T shirts.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

[Changleen]

"In an age of spin, al-Sahaf offers feeling and authenticity. His message is consistent -- unshakeable, in fact, no matter the evidence -- but he commands daily attention by his on-the-spot, invective-rich variations on the theme. His lunatic counterfactual art is more appealing than the banal awfulness of the Reliable Sources. He is a Method actor in a production that will close in a couple of days. He stands superior to truth."

-- Jean-Pierre McGarrigleFvck yeah.

[OrthoPT]

What about the Gold? People were stealing the Gold. You know who likes gold don'tcha?
Leperchauns? I knew they had something to do with it...

[Da Peach]

What about the Gold? People were stealing the Gold. You know who likes gold don'tcha?

Leprechauns?

(Dang. got beat)

[MMike]

Never trust the irish......


Thermite is hot stuff.....that's what they use now to weld rails (train tracks) together.....

[T-Dog]

I know there have been several threads about this and other 9/11 issues; there was a pretty good article about all the theories in Popular Mechanics last year----here's a link to the online version.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

edit: apologies if this has been posted.

[Tenchiro]

I know there have been several threads about this and other 9/11 issues; there was a pretty good article about all the theories in Popular Mechanics last year----here's a link to the online version.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

edit: apologies if this has been posted.


Nice link. Too bad that hat no amount of facts and rational arguments will sway some people.

[Changleen]

Nice link. Too bad that hat no amount of facts and rational arguments will sway some people.Tench, virtually all of the stuff in the Popular Mechanics article is the very stuff that people have a problem with. Most of it comes directly from the very reports people are arguing are invalid. There is no new material in there. It's essentially just a summary of the official version. Not that suprising if you see who PM is owned by...

[RenegadeRick]

There isn't much in any of the "official" stories that can explain the molten steel that was found in the basements of all three collapsed buildings. The BYU professor's article has links to much documented evidence of molten steel.

No "official" theory suggests that any fire burned hot enough to melt steel, only enough to weaken it.

[H8R]

I took a welding class a couple years ago. One thing I learned: steel is fvking tough.

In oxy-acetylene welding, it takes a focused stream of compressed acetylene with oxygen mixed in to melt steel. Putting the flame directly to an 1/8" piece of mild steel, it takes a quite a bit before it will melt it.

This is a welding torch BTW - the flame is 3,410 degrees F.

An O/A cutting torch uses the same mixture to cut steel. However, it's not the heat, it's the oxygen that does the cuting. It is accelerated oxidation that cuts, not the melting. The acetylene fuel mixed with oxygen starts the process, then the cutting torch lever is depressed, which opens the oxygen valve wide open. The compressed jet of oxygen blows through the steel.

Steel oxidizes quickly, that is why cutting torches work on it. They don't work on non-ferrous metals so well.


Kerosene (jet fuel) can be used in a cutting torch to cut steel. However, it sucks. It takes alot longer to get the cut to work than acetylene.

Keep in mind, these all use oxygen. The fuels themselves do not get hot enough to be effective against mild steel, let alone high strength steel used in the WTC.

So the building collapsed from intense heat. What collapsed the lower floors that were not burning? Why did everything go straight down with zero resistance?

[OrthoPT]

I don't know. But unlike many people who also don't know, I don't feel compelled to make stuff up to make myself feel better.

While the video of the collapse makes it look very clean and controlled. The fact is, this is the first modern skyscraper to collapse solely from fire and not have recently been hit by a plane. Maybe that is how they fail? We won't know until it happens again.

All this conspiracy crap is basically just like religion, for most of our history nobody knew anything about what makes things happen, so they invented god to explain the things they didn't understand. Why is the sky blue? God made it so. Why does it rain? Oh yeah, that is god also.

It is more exciting for people to make up conspiracy theories and pretend they are the heroes of an action movie. Where they are the only thing capable of exposing some great evil and saving the day.
:stupid:

[RenegadeRick]

I don't know. But unlike many people who also don't know, I don't feel compelled to make stuff up to make myself feel better.

<snip>
All this conspiracy crap is basically just like religion, for most of our history nobody knew anything about what makes things happen, so they invented god to explain the things they didn't understand. Why is the sky blue? God made it so. Why does it rain? Oh yeah, that is god also.
<snip>

So are you suggesting God brought down WTC7?


<snip>
While the video of the collapse makes it look very clean and controlled. The fact is, this is the first modern skyscraper to collapse solely from fire and not have recently been hit by a plane. Maybe that is how they fail? We won't know until it happens again.
<snip>

It has happened again, well, the modern skyscraper major fire thing anyhow: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310898.shtml. What has not happened, sir, is the controlled demolition style collapse.

Perhaps you wish to suggest that God held these other buildings up?

[OrthoPT]

So are you suggesting God brought down WTC7?


It has happened again, well, the modern skyscraper major fire thing anyhow: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310898.shtml. What has not happened, sir, is the controlled demolition style collapse.

Perhaps you wish to suggest that God held these other buildings up?
Nope. Not at all. The buildings in the above link were different form the towers in many ways, making the comparison of their dustruction a waste of time. I think it won't be a "perfect" comparison 'til a structure with the same architectural design and identical materials and size is hit with the same type, size and weight airplane. Basically, it's a matter of armchair physics and debate until the duplicate conditions are achieved. JMHO.

[MMike]

So are you suggesting God brought down WTC7?




You never know....he can be pretty wiley.....

[fluff]

You never know....he can be pretty wiley.....
Let's impeach him.

[Westy]

I took a welding class a couple years ago. One thing I learned: steel is fvking tough.

In oxy-acetylene welding, it takes a focused stream of compressed acetylene with oxygen mixed in to melt steel. Putting the flame directly to an 1/8" piece of mild steel, it takes a quite a bit before it will melt it.

This is a welding torch BTW - the flame is 3,410 degrees F.

An O/A cutting torch uses the same mixture to cut steel. However, it's not the heat, it's the oxygen that does the cuting. It is accelerated oxidation that cuts, not the melting. The acetylene fuel mixed with oxygen starts the process, then the cutting torch lever is depressed, which opens the oxygen valve wide open. The compressed jet of oxygen blows through the steel.

Steel oxidizes quickly, that is why cutting torches work on it. They don't work on non-ferrous metals so well.


Kerosene (jet fuel) can be used in a cutting torch to cut steel. However, it sucks. It takes alot longer to get the cut to work than acetylene.

Keep in mind, these all use oxygen. The fuels themselves do not get hot enough to be effective against mild steel, let alone high strength steel used in the WTC.

So the building collapsed from intense heat. What collapsed the lower floors that were not burning? Why did everything go straight down with zero resistance?


Steel is tough but it strength drops quickly when the temperature increases, even if below the melting point. Why do you think they insulate steel structural members with fire resistant materials? So they don't weaken and collapse during a fire. If a fire burns for a long time the insulation can't do much, especially if it is blown away by something like an airliner blasting through it. Put those steel beams under a great load, put others under greater load by damagaing neighboring beams and you wouldn't need to come anywhere near the melting point to have them fail.

When they first started making buildings out of brick and steel they found the whole buildings would collapse during a fire because the steel floor beams would sag from getting too hot. The ends of the sagging beams would act as a big lever lifting the brick walls and tipping them inwards. Standard practice now is to cut chamfers on the ends of the beams so if they sag they will not bring the walls in.

[RenegadeRick]

<snip> 'til a structure with the same architectural design and identical materials and size is hit with the same type, size and weight airplane. <snip>
The whole point is that WTC 7 was not struck by an airplane.

Nope. Not at all. The buildings in the above link were different form the towers in many ways, making the comparison of their dustruction a waste of time. I think it won't be a "perfect" comparison 'til a structure with the same architectural design and identical materials and size is hit with the same type, size and weight airplane. Basically, it's a matter of armchair physics and debate until the duplicate conditions are achieved.
So then you would agree that animal testing of products is a waste of time since animal physiology is not a "perfect" comparison to human physiology. Or perhaps, can one draw hypotheses based upon things of a similar nature? I believe this is the basis of science.

The professor's paper does not make any claims as to what actually happened, but rather suggests a hypothesis that requires further testing. This hypothesis is based upon the observation of molten steel in all three buildings, which cannot be explained by any of the "official" theories.