Loose Change - a must see

[darkbeforedawn]

Here is some interesting material from this website<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm">home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/wtc.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Relative to the 'temperature' argument, the imagery of the WTC does NOT reveal the aluminum siding of the WTC towers deforming. Thus, given the constant exposure - over time - to any escaping heat, it is difficult to imagine the fires being so hot as to cause either catastrophic or abrupt damage to the WTC vertical support structure. None of the images of the outer steel structure show the otherwise expected red-hot glow. All images show the outer shell mechanically destroyed, versus any suggestion of collapsing from thermal cause. Given the mechanics of the heat escape, the outer columns were the most vulnerable to heat damage. No matter what fire dynamics were going on within the building, the heat escape was almost exclusively - and constantly - around the outer columns. Hence, given both time and temperature, the outer columns should have been the structural 'weak-link.' <br><br>Or, if one cares to argue that the core structure (elevators or stairways) were acting as a chimney, it is necessary to realize than any catastrophic temperatures which "chimneyed" would have caused the contents of the upper floors to burn violently - which is not seen in the images, versus the predominant brown and white smoke, indicating a relatively cool temperature. <br><br><br>While one is given to concluding that the jet fuel ran down the elevator shafts, it must be noted that the WTC towers had three independent elevator levels/segments, with only one elevator shaft going to the top. Thus, the ONLY other top-to-bottom avenue for central destruction were the 47 core steel columns. If there were "inspection ports," or with a few holes cut in the core columns, the necessary charges could be lowered into place. <br><br>The Naudet Brothers videotape/DVD demonstrates the lack of any prominent lobby smoke or sooting to suggest any amount of jet fuel pouring down the single elevator shaft & burning. Again, one must remember that the elevators were broken up into three distinct modules. That only leaves the possibility of demolition charges. Strangely, in the Naudet documentary, the North Tower lobby windows were all blown outward - requiring a huge pneumatic force in a lobby of that size - OR - a settling of the building!. The associated burn victims leave the source of the flames in question. The inherent nature of fire suggests that the fire/blast came from below the lobby. <br><br>There is an interesting report from Engineer Mike Pecoraro, working in the sub-basement level of the North Tower, on that morning. He describes numerous ground and sub-basement level explosions in the on-line publication " Chief Engineer." The article describes, from D level "The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone. 'There was nothing there but rubble, 'Mike said. 'We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press ? gone!' The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. 'There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything' he said. <br><br>In the evidence of the WTC collapse, the North Tower antenna starting down first was second only to the infamous tattle-tale blonde, in the FEMA report, standing in the impact hole of the North Tower. Her presence attests to the fact that the fires were obviously too cool to collapse the towers, let alone abruptly. <br><br><br>A few sentences in the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) report [Chapter 2] add to the 'mystery' of the collapse: <br><br>"The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings' contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings." <br><br>Thus, one quickly has to assume that the buildings were designed to NOT collapse from 'normal' fire temperatures and return to the question of the reality behind not only a collapse, but an abrupt collapse.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

<br>To see the photo and read story about tattletale blonde, go to this address.<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rense.com/general66/spainw.htm">www.rense.com/general66/spainw.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

DBD, unsurprisingly, you haven' understood a word of what has been discussed here. No one is saying jet fuel melted steel, or that the fireballs in the elevator shafts brought down the towers... Showing that photo as evidence of anything is also utterly ridiculous, betraying a complete lack of understanding of the "official story"/non-CD explanations of the towers collapses. By the way, did you know NIST included that photo in their report on the twin towers? <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I think YOU are the ones not understanding anything. You are trying to push some bizarre theory that the fuel caused "explosions" in the elevator shafts--which on the surface sounds very erudite, but when you really think about it has no basis in facts or in the construction details of the elevator shaft. I posted an article explaining the REAL proplems with the shafts and then I posted that picture (which incidently is an "official photo") because it does belie your rediculous poorly explained theory. That woman simply could not have been standing there over an hour after the jet fuel proportly "poured down the shafts" and an "explosive" fire where temperatures <br> of over 1000 degrees centigrade were supposedly raging. You name call. You belittle. You don't address any of the issues I touched upon. You are just like the rightwing media. Attack the poster, not the issues. The aluminum and the steel girders composing the outer shell of the WTC tube within a tube design remain untouched and undistorted by any sign of high temperatures or raging explosions on the inside of the building. But if such events were going on this would not be the case. The heat from that unlikely scenario would be blowing out the windows and damaging the thin foil covering the outer wall. <br> <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

And another point: Qutb keeps talking about "explosions" as if it were a natural function of kerosene (or jet fuel) to simply explode in a non combustion chamber setting. There is little evidence that the elevator shafts would be "airtight" to the point of resembling a combustion chamber which could generate the type of force necessary to cause an "explosion" that could possibly destroy the massive <br>47 core support girders. As previous posters noted, there most likely just wasn't enough fuel left after initial contact and fire ball. If it were possible to bring down buildings in this most expeditious manner causing them to fall into their own footprints and the girders to break into neat 25 foot lengths as happened with all THREE of the collapses that day, why don't they stop using those costly and time consuming methods to destroy unwanted buildings and simply "light em up" with kerosene. In fact Qutb maybe you could patent the new invention. I can see it now: QUTB'S OWN GAS DEMOLITION COMPANY DON'T WASTE TIME AND MONEY FOLKS!!! LET QUTB BRING DOWN YOUR BUILDINGS WITH NOTHING MORE THAN GAS AND A MATCH.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Well, I think I was right about thermite. However, it didn't occur to me that it could have been produced naturally. Molten aluminum (Al melts at fairly low temperatures) loses the protection of it's aluminum oxide layer. It is then very reactive. It can combine with iron oxide (rust) of which there was plenty on the beams as photos show. It can combine with Calcium Oxide (lime) which is found in cement and cautionary statements about using concrete molds for molten aluminum are easily found. It can combine with gypsum which is a hydrate of calcium sulfate, meaning it contains a certain proportion of water. Finally, it can even react with water itself, both grabbing the oxygen and also leaving flammable hydrogen. All this comes from this report:<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf">www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Here's a summary of what this author thinks happened:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>-Boeing 767 aircraft separately strike WTC 1 & 2 and flaming wreckage becomes<br>lodged in the upper floors of each Tower.<br>- Combustibles, such as office furniture, paper and plastic, start to burn, fuelled by at<br>least 10,00 liters of kerosene, and the temperature in the impact zone begins to rise.<br>-After about 30 minutes, the fires subside, but black smoke continues to pour out of both<br>Towers showing that the fires are not “out”, but “smoldering”.<br>- After about 40 minutes, parts of the airframe in WTC 2 approached the critical<br>temperature range of 500 - 550&#61616; C where aluminum alloys starts to soften and melt.<br>-At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2.<br>- The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through<br>other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also<br>falls onto fractured concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite<br>explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires.<br>- The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged<br>steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.<br>- The remains of the semi-molten airframe fall to the floor below and mix with fresh<br>combustible material, air, water, thermite reagents (crushed concrete, gypsum, rust), and<br>sections of aluminum cladding from the Tower’s façade, initiating more explosions.<br>- This sequence of events is now repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly<br>violent cascade of destruction. Gravity adds momentum to the downward acceleration of<br>the mass of debris and WTC 2 collapses in less than 16 seconds.<br>-The burning aluminum remaining at the end of the collapse glows brightly for a<br>moment and illuminates the rising clouds of smoke and dust at ground zero.<br>- About 25 minutes later, the temperature of the aircraft wreckage in WTC 1 reaches the<br>critical 500 - 550 degree C range where molten aluminum starts to flow. The sequence of<br>events observed in WTC 2 is repeated in WTC 1 and a second global collapse ensues.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> (sorry for the weird spacing...trying to cut and past off of a pdf.)<br><br>This is actually so obvious I'm embarrassed I didn't think of it myself. I didn't realize of course, that there was aluminum paneling in the building itself but there was lots in the plane. The calcium oxide part didn't occur to me either. Still, it is a viable theory in my view. It also even explains the "explosions" as when aluminum reacts violently with the calcium oxide in concrete, bad things happen. Details in the report.<br><br>It also helps explain the burning hotspots even many weeks later. Aluminum in high pH water will react to create hydrogen. I've done this myself with some homeschool chemistry students I've worked with. Hydrogen...as in Hindenberg. So the molten aluminum, insulated not only by rubble but also by the aluminum oxide layer created by the reaction with oxygen, stays hot. In addition, the aluminum enters into solution with acidic water, grabbing the oxygen leaving hydrogen gas, which burns uite readily.<br><br>So, there you have it. Read the report and decide for yourself. <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

Go there and laugh yourself sick. "burning aluminum brings down steel girders." Disinfo scam if ever there was one. Why didn't all the aluminum on the OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING thousands and thousands of square feet of it, show any signs of "burning" then? At the time of the "pancaking, fuel syruping" faster than free fall "gravity" driven collapse, simply none of this endless yardage of aluminum was on fire. Look at all the pictures just before collapse. Undamaged aluminum siding; unbroken windows; stable building structures with small easily controlled fires. Please, DE,.... Just how stupid do you think we are? <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

The theory is that the plane itself contained over 10,000 kg of aluminum. Read the paper. that's where the aluminum for the reaction came from. The sheeing on the outside was added to the rubble pile which could help explain the hotspots.<br><br>So, before asking me to evaluate your intelligence, you might want to read the whole report. It's quite short. The report, I mean. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

dbd, I'm not understanding your reference to the "aluminum on the OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING". Are you only pointing to that as evidence that aluminum inside couldn't have been burning if the outside aluminum wasn't burning, too? Or do you mean that that outside aluminum was important to the structure of the buildings and if it wasn't burning, then the buildings shouldn't have collapsed? <p></p><i></i>

[darkbeforedawn]

I read the report. It still does not explain the FACT that NONE OF THE VISIBLE ALUMINUM WAS ON FIRE. Also looking at photos after the explosive collapses, it can be seen quite unburned and draped like tinsel over all the nearby buildings. Burning aluminum, contrary to this rediculous blather, did not form the pools of liquid metal whose temperatures ranged into above 1000 degrees f for weeks, because at those temperatures it would have been oxidized. The actual amount of burning aluminum of the plane body would have been miniscule compared to the huge masses of it on the facades of the building. The insides of the WTC NEVER IGNITED. There are dozens of witness, many of whom were professional fire fighters that testify to this. But just ignore them. Obviously we have to find an explanation, any explanation except the real one (CD) to explain this. Because if it is CD, then dreams end will have to face fact of the huge conspiracy involving the US gov in collusion with Isreal to bomb and destroy all the indigenous populations in the middle east to make it safe for real human beings. And we all know goyim aren't human, right? So find a theory, any theory, keep pounding away it and we don't have to talk about the fact that our government had the means, motives and opportunities to commit these crimes. And that Israel, Rich American oil companies and defence contractors were the ones benefiting. Yes clearly, we must argue and argue and argue using evidence so rediculous a child could see through it, not to have to ask the simple question WHO BENEFITS? Because the answer is: ISREAL!!!!!!!!!!!! AND HALIBURTON AND EXXON and the Carlyle group and the Bin Laden Family . <p></p><i></i>

[JD]

The Aluminum theory is ridiculous. What a load of crock.<br><br>The Jet Fuel theory is ridiculous.<br><br>The Diesel fire theory in WTC7 is ridiculous.<br><br>In the future, we'll just reliably knock down buildings with hydrocarbon fires. For really tough buildings we'll just fly old junker aircraft into them to soften them up.<br><br>Fucking ridiculous. Yet this is the level of mainstream thinking.<br><br>Having said that - the tin-foil hat theories don't go around either. I mean wtf - why are all those "demolition charges" going off wayyyyyyy before show time?<br><br>Not to mention the pods, mini-nukes, or any of the other tinfoil theories.<br><br>NOTHING makes sense wrt 9/11. The only thing I can make of it is that it is a "crazy-making" incident. Designed to drive us all mad. <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Well, since no one actually addressed the theory, I will review. The plane was made of ALUMINUM. The plane EXPLODED. Jet fuel burns at higher temperature than the melting point of aluminum. So, DBD, are you suggesting that the aluminum from which the plane was made did NOT melt? Are we to believe that the molten metal found at the bottom (pointed to by CD proponents as evidence FOR CD) and streaming out of the sides of the building, was melted steel but NOT aluminum, even though steel has a melting point much higher than aluminum?<br><br>And if there were no fires in the building, I wonder where all that smoke came from? And what caused those hotspots in the rubble, again, the same hotspots cited by PROPONENTS of CD to show that the temperatures inside got HOTTER than the temp of burning jet fuel. <br><br>Are you arguing that molten aluminum will NOT react with concrete and iron oxide in the way described in the report? Are you suggesting that reports of concrete aluminum molds exploding when not handled correctly are ALSO part of the conspiracy? <br><br>For the last time, read the report (or in the case of DBD have someone read it to you as you clearly missed the point.) It is not the external aluminum that melted and reacted to weaken the internal core. THAT was the aluminum from THE PLANE. That had 10,000 kg of aluminum, which melts at well below the burning point of jet fuel.<br><br>Now, I put this out in the spirit of investigation. I was arguing in FAVOR of the idea of the use of thermite for CD. Investigating that idea, I found this article. <br><br>What is your response? Namecalling and accusations of intentional spread of disinformation (which, by the way, dbd, is against posting guidelines, however, the delicious irony of the proponent of the "no planes hit the WTC theory" calling ME a spreader of disinformation is so amusing that I'm inclined to overlook it.)<br><br>As for this fascinating leap of logic:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Because if it is CD, then dreams end will have to face fact of the huge conspiracy involving the US gov in collusion with Isreal to bomb and destroy all the indigenous populations in the middle east to make it safe for real human beings. And we all know goyim aren't human, right?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I think that speaks for itself. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 4/1/06 2:16 pm<br></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Because if it is CD, then dreams end will have to face fact of the huge conspiracy involving the US gov in collusion with Isreal to bomb and destroy all the indigenous populations in the middle east to make it safe for real human beings. And we all know goyim aren't human, right?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Seriously -- fuck this shit. I don't even know why I post here at this point. <p><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--></p><i></i>

[Iroquois]

Both kerosene and aluminum can burn through steel, if there is enough oxygen available to provide for a high enough rate of combustion. Both are used industrially for high temperature cutting jobs, kerosene in jet torches often used to bore into rock and aluminum in thermite compounds often used to cut steel. Both require a tremendous amount of oxygen, however. The kerosene cutters pipe in oxygen along side the kerosene. In thermite, aluminum powder is bound in a mixture with an oxidant at an optimal ratio.<br><br>The key thing here is getting that oxygen to the reaction in significant quantities. I can easily see how some % of the plane body underwent combustion as the plane struck the towers, causing some interesting pyrotechnic effects that some thought were missile launches and igniting the jet fuel.<br><br>But, Greening takes that fairly believable premise and says that long after, when the fires were actually getting weaker, the aluminum melted, mixed with oxidants from the structure (which was still almost entirely intact), and combusted. And, perhaps most importantly, that this happened in significant enough quantities to initiate the collapse of both buildings despite the random distribution of this spontaneously generated thermite.<br><br>This sounds like a string of major leaps of faith here. Aluminum is a pretty commonly used building material. It would seem that this spontaneously occurring thermite reaction would be pretty common if it happened as easily as Greening seemed to imply. Is there any evidence of that? I haven't found any outside of the study on the two industrial cases that the article I posted a link to yesterday tried to replicate, both of which involved liquid oxygen.<br><br>From Dreams End:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Are you arguing that molten aluminum will NOT react with concrete and iron oxide in the way described in the report?<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'll answer this if I may. Explosion resulting from rapid heat expansion is a common problem with concrete, especially if it has not been given proper time to cure and is not adequately dried. But this is due to the vaporization of the water within the high compression strength medium of the concrete, and it occurs with other molten metals besides aluminum. The idea that the aluminum and small amount of water that it comes into contact with has an exothermic reaction akin to thermite combustion is something I need more evidence than apparently Greening does, which is a post on an Amateur Telescope Makers forum.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://astro.umsystem.edu/atm/ARCHIVES/OCT00/msg00433.html">astro.umsystem.edu/atm/AR...00433.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'm sure Brad is a pretty smart guy. But, such a claim with such profound implications should have a better source. And, I don't believe that the workers at the East Alco Aluminum foundry would need the threat of spontaneous thermite reactions to give them cause to run when a crucible full of molten aluminum crashes to the workshop floor.<br><br>And, no, I don't believe that makes Brad the part of any conspiracy, at least not willingly. I doubt he realized his statement on such an obscure forum would years later undergo such scrutiny.<br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

All valid, Iroquois, though you forgot to accuse me of spreading disinfo.<br><br>I doubt, however, that building standards need to change much, as it is fairly rare for a large aluminum object to crash into the middle of one's high rise, which is where the main aluminum in this theory comes from.<br><br>I could add my own further objections...<br><br>Can this explain both towers? The second one was an indirect hit, so even a similar reaction wouldn't hit the core.<br><br>And of course it doesn't explain wtc7.<br><br>I didn't quite get your point about oxygen. the point was that the oxygen comes from the other compounds, such as iron oxide or calcium oxide. the aluminum is oxidized and energy released. Maybe I just didn't get your point on that one.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>