Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. Gayle refuting the notion that fires in the WTC buildings were sufficiently hot to melt the steel supports: What about the observed squibs?
The next day, the dissenting professor said he had further thought about it and now agreed that more investigation was needed. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section of the US Copyright Law. One of the people a thorough investigation should question under oath would be demolition expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. Field, ; emphasis added.
Aktuelles aus Ulm
Questioning preferably under oath of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed — and others as outlined above — should proceed in the United States. How fast did the building fall? The roof of WTC 7 students and I are observing the southwest corner falls to earth in less than 6.
The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. WTC 7 is the tall. Blasters approach each project a little differently The New Pearl Harbor:
This could lead to an experiment crucis. It ended only when a university class needed the room. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence, although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached
What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true. Omissions and Distortions , Northampton, Massachusetts:
But why did they do such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings, and set off after the two plane crashes — which were actually a diversion tactic. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11,
The collapses are thus symmetrical, rapid and complete, with accompanying squibs -- really very standard stuff for demolition experts. The main challenge in bringing a building down is controlling which way it falls. The science is sound. No, the lower level of the building. It helps to have sound. The field is wide open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its neglect by studies funded by the US government.
Then consider a video close-up of the same building SW corner as its demise begins:. Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed. What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? Omissions and Distortions , Northampton, Massachusetts:
- This serious matter needs to be treated as a plausible scientific hypothesis and thoroughly investigated. So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. Penn Arts and Sciences Omissions and Distortions , Northampton, Massachusetts:
- In particular, photos and analyses of the molten metal probably not molten steel observed in the basements of both Towers and WTC7 need to be brought forth to the international community of scientists and engineers immediately. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September North Tower during top-down collapse.
To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e. What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to give way nearly simultaneously? In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was.
I also showed evidence and scientific arguments for the explosive demolition theory. I have presented ample evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is testable and falsifiable and yet has not been seriously considered in any of the studies funded by the US government. I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was? Notice workers standing on floor pan which is.
The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on , are less than convincing. Correct — jet collisions did not cause collapses — we can agree on that. And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? Questioning preferably under oath of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed — and others as outlined above — should proceed in the United States.
Any reader who knows of chemical analyses or even photographs of this molten metal found below the rubble piles of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is invited to speak out and contact the author. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the probable collapse sequence, although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint the total area at the base of the building. Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true. Seen from WTC 1 area.