Strange seismic activity and molten steel at Ground Zero on 9/11/01

[Carl Brennan]

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2.htm
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse. These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations causing them to collapse.
"MOLTEN STEEL"
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of "literally molten steel" were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.
Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, New York, told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center. Tully was contracted on September 11 to remove the debris from the site.
Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. <debris.htm> (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland, for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures."

[hang a left]

1. It certainly is a question that has bothered me.

Why don't we examine the wreckage. Oh yeah....there isn't any wreckage, it was hauled off within weeks never to be seen again.

[Teaser]

2. speaking as a physicist

I can't say I'd be surprised that this would have accompanied the impact of two flying, explosives packed vehicles into the towers. I'd expect a seismic thump from that.

And as for molten steel, well the inside of the building was on fire. When the building collapsed, all that heat was trapped inside the rubble. I'm not surprised it got hot enough to melt steel.

Ever cook a potato underground? Start a fire in a hole in the ground and then collapse the earth, potato and whatnot over the fire.

Gets real hot.

[hang a left]

3. As a physicist.....

At what temperature does steel become molten?

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. That all depends on the composition of the steel. n/t

[Al-CIAda]

5. ding-ding....good question.

furthermore, would the steel be molten for a week?

[Old and In the Way]

7. The seismic charts have been posted here before.

The actual crashs barely show up....but there are huge spikes reflecting each tower's collapse. What is not clear is if this is a bomb signature or the registration of the actual collapse. The spikes are so fast and sharp that it seems a case could be made that the logged event could be charges shearing the foundational pilings. I would think if this had been caused by the crashes, there'd be a slow ramp on the seismic charts without any spiking, reflecting the top floors collapsing one on each other....

[Jose Diablo]

24. Yep

The seismographs clearly show the airplanes crashing into the buildings long before the actual collapse.

As for the collapse itself, there is a very large spike at the very beginning and then lower amplitude spikes as the buildings come down.

I think somebody explained the huge initial spike as a "S" wave, surface wave, that conducts through the surface easier. Then the others as deeper waves. I don't know it this was true, but the are clear very large initial spikes right at the beginning of the collapses.

Pictures of the seismographs can be downloaded.

[yella_dawg]

8. Speaking as an engineer...

You're joking, right?

Intense seismic spikes didn't result from strikes on the towers nearly a thousand feet in the air. The structure would have dampened the initial energy pulse before it was transmitted into bedrock. That the impacts could have been detected seismologically, perhaps. That the impacts caused intense spikes, please.

As for the heat, jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. If it did, jet engines would be very short-term constructs. In the case of the towers, the fuel burned in overly rich (low temperature) conditions that came nowhere near the melting point of steel that was certified to a high melting point, specifically to reduce the danger of fire damage to the structure.

And here's the biggie! X amount of heat is still X amount of heat no matter where, when or how you contain it. The only way you could get a profound temperature rise by burying it would be if it were buried near enough the earth's core to absorb heat from the mantle.

Physicist my ass.

Go cook some potatoes.

[DrWeird]

12. Speaking as a chemist...

The planes colliding with the towers would have obviously registered on the seismometer, as would large peices of debris falling from 100+ stories. But the largest spike, obviously, would have been the towers falling. As for the steel, no, the fire would have not been hot enough to turn steel into liquid. It would, however, have the steel glowing red hot and losing most of its structual integrity. The bending caused by the force of the fall would have heated even further.

Also, as a scientist and a reasonably intelligent human, I have to say that all this conspiracy crap about bombs, and missles, and UFOs, and tsunamis and everything else is disgusting and whoever contributes to it should be ashamed of themselves.

Go pull your foot out of your mouth.

[Squatch]

16. Venturi effect of air being sucked through gaping holes in the

building's facade would also fan the fires, increasing available O2, ergo increasing rate at which the fuel and other things (paper, etc) would burn.

[DrWeird]

18. The ruins were smoldering for weeks.

Let's not forget electrical fires.

[Squatch]

19. True...and fuel in vehicles parked in the subterranean garages

natural gas lines, etc.

[MadHound]

54. As a former fireman, I say go look at the films of the towers

Notice all that thick dark smoke coming out? That is the sign of a fire that is choking, it has plenty of fuel, but is lacking O2. You can observe this same phenomenon on older cars during startup. You choke the engine, depriving it of O2, pump the gas and hit the ignition. Dark smoke comes out the tailpipe, exhaust that is rich in fuel, but incompletely burnt due to lack of O2. As you feather back the choke, allowing the engine more air, the exhaust turns lighter and lighter until you can't see it anymore.

Also, when you have a good campfire going and decide to dowse it for the night. You throw the water on and immediately thick dark smoke comes roiling up. Again, the sign of too much fuel, not enough O2.

Another point to take into consideration is that in every single office and public building in this country, the owners of the building have to comply with certain fire regulations. These regulations include the requirement to use fire retardant building and finishing materials. This includes, but isn't limited to, fire retardant carpets, drapes, wall surfaces, furniture and coverings, etc. etc. I have even read where all of the steel trusses and girders were spray coated with a flame retardant material. This would slow the fire way down, and make it burn cooler.

Also, from reports by the firemen on the scene inside the towers, the sprinkler system was fully functional and working overtime. Again, slowing the fire down, depriving it of O2, and making it burn cooler.

Holes or not, that was a relatively cold fire in the towers, spreading slowly, deprived of O2. This is also confirmed by the firemen in the towers who after surveying the situation were calling for only three lines to put out the fire. I don't care if it is three 2" hoses they're calling for, the fact that they're only calling for three of them says to me that the fire was relatively small and slow burning, and could be put out easily. Nowhere near the roaring, girder melting inferno that the official story is trying to cram down our throats.

[uncle ray]

67. so the fire was consistant throughout?

probably not. one part of the building could be burning very differently thatn some other part of the building. how the smoked looked to you is not an accurate indicator of what was going on.

to use your campfire analogy, you can throw water on half the fire, theres gonna be a lot of smoke and steam, but the other half of the fire will burn on. not that it even applies in any way, nobody dumped water on this fire, at least not any appreciable amount. tire fires have thick black plumes of smoke, but you would be wrong to think it was a weak fire.

yes there are regulations governing fire safety, but offices are not fireproof, they are fire RESISTANT, once exposed to enough heat, just about anything will burn.

if things were so rosy up there, where are the videos of firemen waving out the holes in the building? according to you they practically had the fire out before the explosives went off, right?

[Squatch]

70. And, each floor is approximately 1 acre in area.

[MadHound]

73. Nice hyperbole friend, yet despite your witty wordplay,

The truth is staring you in the face. Watch the film, see that there is dark smoke coming out on EVERY SIDE OF THE TOWERS. So yes, it is pretty damn obvious that the fire was being slowed down, burning relatively cooly throughout.

Oh, and get your terms straight, there is a crucial difference between fire retardant, which is what the fire regs call for, and fire resistant. Fire retardant is a much more rigorous standard to meet, and if a significant amount of your building materials and office furnishings are fire retardant, it is going to slow down the fire, making it burn much cooler.

And yes friend, to trained eyes(which I have by the by, having for more fires than I care to remember in the years that I served) smoke is a very accurate indicator of what a fire is doing. Oh, and then there is the matter of what the firefighters who were on the scene were describing. And what they were describing is a fire that was completely controlable. Three lines friend, that is what they wanted, three lines. If the fire was as uncontrolable as you and the "official experts claim", those firefighters wouldn't be calling for any lines, they would be getting themselves and anybody they could find out of the towers, not going in trying to fight the fire.

I think I'll stick with what my expertise and the accounts of the experts on the scene tell me, that the WTC fires were relatively cool, completely controlable fires. But hey, to each their own. If you want to go with the "official story" who am I to stop you? Just a friendly warning though, you could very well end up looking like a fool for believing that here in a few years or so. After all, all of those people poo-pooed folks who said that Oswald wasn't the only shooter, called them conspiracy theorists and worse. Amazing how sixteen years after the fact that the House Committee on Assasinations agreed with the so called crackpots and conspiracy theorists.

[yella_dawg]

20. As a chemist, I'd expect you to understand basic thermodynamics.

Ever wonder how big a heat sink the frame of a fourteen hunded foot skyscraper is? The flames didn't heat a chunk of steel. They heated a huge mass that is designed like a big aluminum skinned radiator.

Sorry, my foot is fine where its at.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yella_dawg]

25. So you attack the messenger

rather than refute the message. Interesting.

My only interest is to point out the discrepancies in the "official story". I'd like to know why the debris was shipped offshore immediately after it was removed from the building site. The official explanations for 9/11 stink.

I also wonder why you are so acrimonious toward ideas that threaten the status quo. I mean, your response was really abusive. What's your stake in this?

[DrWeird]

27. The "official explanations"

So what's your explanation? Chupacabras?

[yella_dawg]

29. Wow! You just don't give up, do you?

I don't have explanations. I have questions. Why is that not okay with you? The Bush administrations lies as a matter of policy. But they were 100% honest about this one? What's your explanation for that?

[Squatch]

30. I think it's combination

of a sub-basic understanding of structures and naively buying into the myriad of crackpot conspiracy theories on this matter.

[DrWeird]

31. I can agree with that.

Sounds about right. But I think you're neglecting to take into account the specific heat capacity of utter stupidity.

[Squatch]

35. Very high...around 10^5 J/kgK

It's one of the most heat retentive substances out there.

[Frederik]

132. Utter stupidity

Is Sibel Edmonds an example of utter stupidity?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3561783

"Tom, I’m telling you that not a single newspaper covered what happened to me on Thursday when I went into court," said the exasperated translator, adding, " Ginsberg kicked everyone out, cut off my lawyer’s arguments and told us ‘we have questions to ask the government’s attorneys that you cannot hear.’ "

"Criminal evidence in Edmonds’ explosive case is apparently getting too close to Washington officials, since the former contract linguist also told us she would not deny that "once this issue gets to be...investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks."

more
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0504/S00251.htm


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x37842


"I am highly puzzled and curious.

This puzzles me, having first hand knowledge of on going intelligence received and processed by the FBI since 1997, which contained specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales. It is highly curious that the report omitted all this information, knowing that others in the Congress have been briefed on these issues, having been given the names of targets involved, Special Agents, translators, field offices, and files.

I am highly puzzled and curious."

http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds1.htm


Is Daniel Ellsberg an example of utter stupidity?

Ashcroft may face prison
over 9/11 cover-up,
says Daniel Ellsberg
Former Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD

"Talk of US government interference in 9/11 investigations, and the considerable volume of online analysis discounting the official conspiracy theory, resonate with Ellsberg.

"I'm not an expert on all this," he admits. "But I am increasingly open to the explanation that people in the administration did see this coming... and may have indeed reduced some obstacles.., or opened the door, in effect. I haven't been absolutely convinced on that, but it does seem to me to be an open question that deserves investigation."

"Now beyond that... it seems to me quite plausible that --plausible, that's all I'd say-- that Pakistan was quite involved in this, and that many Saudis were well informed on this," says Ellsberg.

"And to say that. To say Pakistan-- is to me, to say C.I.A. Because I think the relations between the Pakistan I.S.I. and CIA were very close from the beginning. And it's hard to say that the I.S.I knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of."

"So if you say, do I accept confidently, and do I rely on the official interpretation? Certainly not. But, I wouldn't say that I have been yet been thoroughly convinced by any alternative."

"I can add one thing though -from my own experience, that's relevant."

"Is it possible... that an American president could have... welcomed an attack on America that he would interpret justifying an invasion of another country?"

"Well, that's more than possible, that happened --under a president that I served. Lyndon Johnson did put American destroyers in harms way, deliberately provoking an attack.. in the Tonkin Gulf. Not only in August of '64, but in February of '65. ...There was an attack on August 2nd, and that was not unwelcome to the United States at that point."

http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds1.htm

This is the national security whistleblower coalition, organized by Sibel Edmonds and others, several of whom have specific knowledge implicating US officials in the Sept 11 attacks:

1. Anderson, Mick, Former Senior Advisor for Policy, DOJ,
2. Bittler, Thomas, Training Coordinator, TSA-DHS,
3. Carman, John, Former Senior Inspector, U.S. Customs,
4. Carson, Joe, Nuclear Safety Engineer, DOE
5. Chambers, Theresa, Former National Park Service Police Chief,
6. Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI,
7. Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI,
8. Coleman, Marsha Adebeyo, Senior Policy Analyst, EPA,
9. Conrad, David “Mark”, Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs,
10. Cruse, Larry, Army Intelligence Analyst, DOD,
11. Czarkowski, Carol, Navy-DOD,
12. Dew, Rosemary, Veteran Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
13. Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA,
14. Edmonds, Sibel, Former Language Specialist, FBI
15. Ellsberg, Dan, Former Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (ISA), DOD,
16. Elson, Steve, Veteran Agent, FAA,
17. Fogg, Matthew F., Chief Deputy US Marshal, (INA),
18. Foley, Theresa, Special Agent, FBI,
19. Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analysts, Boyd Forbes, Inc.,
20. German, Mike, Former Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI,
21. Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy,
22. Graf, Mark, Former Security Supervisor & Derivative Classifier, DOE,
23. Graham, Gilbert, Veteran Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
24. Jenkins, Steve, Intelligence Analyst, NGIC, US Army
25. Johnson, Manny, Former Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
26. Kleiman, Diane, Former Special Agent, US Customs,
27. Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst-DOD,
28. Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operations Officer, CIA,
29. Lewis, Linda, Current Emergency Program Specialist (WMD), FSIS- USDA
30. Lau, Lok, Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI
31. MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA,
32. McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA,
33. Nunn, Sandy, Former Special Agent, US Customs,
34. Pahle, Theodore J., Senior Intelligence Officer (Ret), DIA,
35. Radack Jesselyn, Former Counsel, DOJ,
36. Rowley, Coleen, Retired Special Agent and Former Division Counsel, FBI,
37. Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI,
38. Spaulding, Kerry, Veteran Agent, FAA mailto:[e-mail]
39. Sullivan, Brian F., Special Agent, Risk Program Management Specialist, FAA,
40. Tice, Russ, Senior Intelligence Analyst & Action Officer, NSA,
41. Tortorich, Larry J., Retired Naval Officer, US Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA,
42. Turner, Jane, Veteran Special Agent, FBI,
43. Vincent, John, Veteran Special agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
44. Walp, Glenn, PhD, Former Office Leader of the Office of Security Inquiries, Los Alamos National Lab, DOE,
45. Wehrly, Dot, Veteran Special Agent (Current), FBI,
46. Whitehurst, Dr. Fred, (Retired) Supervisory Special Agent/Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI,
47. Woo, Robert, Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI,
48. Wright, Ann, Col. US Army (ret.); and Former Foreign Service officer
49. Wright, Robert, Veteran Special agent, Counterterrorism, FBI
50. Zipoli, Matthew J., Former Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE

Crackpots?

Robert Wright
Veteran Special agent, Counterterrorism, FBI, about 9/11:

"There's so much more. God, there's so much more. A lot more."

Robert Wright, like Sibel Edmonds, is under a gag order, so they are not allowed to say what they know - for now.

[bpilgrim]

43. typical tactic

but a quick give away... some folks think THEY have ALL the TRUTH :crazy:

thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs :evilgrin:

peace

[MercutioATC]

85. Re: Shipping the debris offshore...

The majority of the debris WAS shipped offshore. There was a LOT of rubble.

Representative pieces were saved and examined, however.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

89. Also, there were a few pieces that were kept and shipped off to a lab

in Colorado. Not held as evidence by the FBI but just to see just why the steel failed, and how it will impact the future building of skyscrapers.

The Evidence was indeed sent packing!

BTW.. if I recall, the company that got rid of the debris at the WTC was a subsidiary of Bechtel? I do know it was the same company that got rid of the debris after the Oklahoma City bombing....

[Squatch]

22. Actually, the twin towers were

steel trusses and glass over a steel frame.

"Ever wonder how big a heat sink the frame of a fourteen hunded foot skyscraper is?"

The heat wasn't applied over the entire structure of the buildings, only the top-most portions.

[yella_dawg]

26. Thermodynamics

"The heat wasn't applied over the entire structure of the buildings, only the top-most portions."

Correct. But steel is a good conductor of heat. Heat applied at one point is quickly disipated throughout the overall structure. Nobody likes to talk about this. I wonder why?

[Squatch]

28. The metal will be as hot as the flame in the locality of combustion

Given the factors of increased oxidation rate because of increased O2 availability, a metal structure that had been pre-strained by impact, and the overburden, the official explanation is MORE than adequate.

[DrWeird]

32. But, but, but metal is a conductor!

You can't just heat up one part without melting the whole thing!!



:eyes:

[Squatch]

38. LOL

[yella_dawg]

40. I'm wrong, you're right

A plasma arc at near solar temperatures melts thinwall tubing, thus jet fuel at well below the melting point of a massive steel beam melts said beam.

I am defeated by superior logic and must concede.

Damn!

[yella_dawg]

33. I disagree with your assumptions.

A localized heat source raises the temperature of a steel beam at the point of application. It does not raise it to the temerature of the source, otherwise, you couldn't cook over a flame. The mass of the steel determines the temerature at the point of application as a function of the mass's ability to absorb and disipate heat.

As for increased oxygen availability, increased relative to what? All indicators were a fuel-rich (low temperature) burn.

Stress from impact? There is no evidence of that. This isn't a four story bank building we're discussing. It was a massive construct designed to withstand massive forces.

[Squatch]

37. Holy crap. Did you fail physics 101 the first time around?

"Stress from impact? There is no evidence of that."

I believe I said "strained"...you do know the difference between stress and strain, don't you?

An airplane completely penetrating the steel structure of one of the towers is a straining (ie stress over unit length) event.

"As for increased oxygen availability, increased relative to what?"

Relative to a non-perforated building...ie one that does not have a gaping, burning hole in its side.

"otherwise, you couldn't cook over a flame."

I don't make it a practice of sticking my pots and pans into a fire. I usually move them away, where the temperature is less.

[yella_dawg]

45. Didn't take physics 101.

As an engineering student, I was required to take the advanced physics required of physics majors.

I'm sure the impact of an airplane stressed the building structure, but only one plane actually struck the internal frame of the (north) tower. And the sheathing had significantly reduced the energy of the impact. Look at the tower design. It is possible that stress on the structure contributed to the collapse. But there is no evidence of that. The debris was shipped offshore during the cleanup effort. That is my only point.

Your comment about air availability has no quantitative basis. Every indication is that the fuel burned in a fuel-rich (low temperature) environment. "Increased oxygen availability" sounds good, but doesn't mean anything, and the implication behind the words is contradicted by the evidence.

As for cooking, I guess I'll have to sell my gas cookstove, huh?

[Squatch]

46. Read and learn, young Jedi.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

[yella_dawg]

51. Whoa!

A PBS documentary!

Well, I stand corrected!

[Squatch]

53. And you should...

stand corrected:

"Dr. Thomas Eagar...A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001)."

So, what are your credentials? Where are you published on this issue?

[jdots]

52. Study the motive

study who benifitted,ask questions and don't stop till some real answers come up.I am sick of people here getting into the " Case Closed " power dogma .

[Squatch]

55. As opposed to the "case open" because

we haven't exhausted every conspiracy theory, yet.

I don't think anybody has explored the connection between Bigfoot and the collapse. Were aliens flying the airplanes? Was it God's wrath?

Oh, and I think Dr Weird has a good line of potential investigation. The collapse was brought on by chupacabras.

[AZCat]

57. It was the soo nam ee...

The soo nam ee had aquired time-travel technology from the Aurelians and traveled back in time to wreak havok on the WTC (and the Pentagon). That is why we must now begin the War On Soo Nam Ee (WOSNE).

[DrWeird]

60. I don't know, this explosives theory is interesting.

We all know explosives produce molten pools of steel that last around for weeks. What because of conductivity and all.

[hack89]

114. Removed upon further thought nt

[Christophera]

122. Thermite = 3000 F. @ 30K FPS, Regulated as HE.

There is actually only one way that such quantities of molten steel can be generated under those conditions leaving the information we do have about the scene. Thermite.

I DO remember after the 1993 bombing, a newscaster talking about the subsequent remodel to the basement and 1st floor. He said, "A special thermal insulation was applied to protect from potential terrorist attack."

There is a degree of irony to this entire thing. Another account I've heard was that an high school engineering/architecture lecture included a description of the twin towers having high explosives built in for their eventual demolition.

[Dancing_Dave]

135. Thanks Christophera!

Thermite deep in the basements is a real physical possibility consistant with a lot of the physical evidence. Unlike the dogmatic non-sense spewed by most defenders of the official 9/11 myth. ;-)

[meppie-meppie not]

115. hear, hear! TY :-) n/t

[TomClash]

124. That's interesting

because when 2 WTC went down, the top half appeared to be the first part to buckle.

[Dancing_Dave]

134. Then how come the hottest part of the event was far underground?

Way at the bottom of the rubble pile, where there were those pools of molten metal, and dirt and building materials continuing to vaporize for weeks afterwards?

Metal from the top of the structures did not melt or vaporize, it was cut into neat pieces by explosives higher in the buildings, and ended up on top of the rubble pile.

You seem to have the thermodynamic flows in this event entirely upside down!

[Dorian Gray]

47. As a non-scientist

I concur.

Thanks for the information, Dr. Weird!

[Dancing_Dave]

133. If you really are a chemist DrWeird

You will be interested in these reports on research.
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-government/C-fraud/01-911/2003/05C1-09-25-03-911-toxic-gases-cover-up.html

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/300788.shtml

[Dancing_Dave]

130. Right on!

:yourock:

[bpilgrim]

42. 'explosives packed vehicles'

also fire in a steel building melts steel... got a link?

tia :hi:

peace

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

87. Here's the chart and a couple of more articles.

http://www.9-11research.com/review/errors/wtc/seismic.html

and here is another and the chart

http://uscrisis.lege.net/911/

snip

SEISMIC 'SPIKES'

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that-as the collapses began-a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, "This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated."

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These "short-period surface waves," reflect "the interaction between the ground and the building foundation," according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

"The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983," the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was "not coupled" to the ground.

"Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion," Lerner-Lam said. "The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small."

Last November, Lerner-Lam said: "During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage-but not causing significant ground shaking."

[Old and In the Way]

90. Thanks for posting.

I wonder if "molten pools of steel" story could be just plain, good old disinformation? I mean, it just doesn't make much sense. (Like just happening to find that almost pristine passport of one of the terrorists...a little too coincidental, IMHO.) There were no blast furnaces making steel in the WTC basements. Most here don't believe the fire temperatures were high enough to melt or even deform the steel trusses when the towers were still standing, why would there be any basis to believe there'd be pools of melted steel deep in the rubble days or weeks after the events?

But I've heard nothing that explains those charts. If the WTC's collapsed naturally as a result of the trusses giving out, I'd have expected to see the floors pancake down on top of each other....but that internal core should have been left standing. And I don't think that chart describes that type of event.

But, if there were charges set off in series to start the upper floor collapses and then the big one knocked the foundational feet off the towers, that would make sense. IMHO, charges directly wired to the foundational pilings, embedded deep into the bedrock, would attenuate the seismic signal causing that kind of readings with that short, sharp spike.

I've wondered why those spikes would not show up at the very beginning of the siesmic record....but if they had sequential charges that started the process at the top of the towers, that would certainly explain it.

This theory about the towers being imploded only makes sense when considered with the fact that the new owner (of 2 months) of the WTC was going to be faced with huge, multi-billion dollar expenses to either overhaul or even dismantle the WTCs at some point within the next 20 years or so. Occupancy rates and lease/rents certainly couldn't cover those costs. I wonder why anyone would even underwrite such a risk in light of those facts?

People have murdered people over a few dollars, why is it inconceivable that 3000 could be murdered for a few billion $?

[demodewd]

94. ***

Good points..O&ITW

[meppie-meppie not]

116. ditto ! n/t

[AZCat]

95. I disagree with your analysis

You state that "if the WTC's collapsed naturally as a resulf of the trusses giving out, I'd have expected to see the floors pancake down on top of each other....but that internal core should have been left standing."

I think you're missing the whole issue of beams buckling under loads. When a previously supported beam has those supports removed, even though the stresses may stay the same (or even decrease), the change in the slenderness ratio can cause the beam to fail due to buckling. There was a thread in GD a while back where I discussed this with somebody - I will see if I can hunt it down.

[Old and In the Way]

97. If I understand the basic construction of the WTCs-

There were built with a steel backbone, consisting of multiple vertical beams, encased in concrete. The floors were poured concrete that were supported by horizontal steel beams that tied to the exterior structure and the backbone.

If these horizontal beams weakened to the point of failure, the floors would pancake, no? Why would the backbone fail? The backbone would provide a guide for the floors to fall consistantly down one on top of the other....but I don't see why that core would come down with each floor.....unless that foundational supports suddenly vanished. Not that it wouldn't come down eventually...but I'd have expected to see some or all of it standing for some amount of time after the floors collapsed to the ground. If I recall, the only structure of significance after the towers collapses were some of the exterior walls.

[AZCat]

98. I can't find the previous conversation

Advanced Search is disabled right now, so I can't find the previous conversation I had regarding buckling and the WTC supports.

Buckling is when a beam that is long compared to it's width and height is subjected to a large enough axial load that it "buckles". An easy example of this can be seen by pushing on the opposite ends of a piece of spaghetti. The spaghetti doesn't fail due to compression, it "buckles" - or bows out - and then fails.

The floors all provide horizontal support for the main load-bearing columns in a building - the floors prevent the columns from behaving as the piece of spaghetti in the above example. If you had a friend place his or her hands around the piece of spaghetti and prevent it from buckling, it would fail at a much higher load than without your friend's hands in place.

In our previous conversation, the poster and I discussed the possibility that the impact of the crash of the aircraft somehow destroyed the supports for the load-bearing beams for one or more of the floors. This would double (or triple) the unsupported length of the beam and reduce significantly the load it could carry before buckling (and subsequently failure).


Does this help? I will find the thread I mentioned whenever we get Advanced Search back - probably sometime tonight.

[AZCat]

99. Ah - Advanced Search is back, and I have the article

It's archived, but you still can read it if you're curious. The posts that concern the slenderness ratio start with #84 by NewYorkerfromMass and the thread is UL questions the "steel softened" theories re. WTC collapsing.

It has interesting information throughout and IMHO is worth reading.

[Old and In the Way]

100. I reread those posts.

They address the floor support columns, right? If the failure was due to the weakening of the vertical/horizontal supports of the floors, I can understand that. What I don't understand is why they'd take down the backbone with the floors. That backbone was like a solid spine directly connected to the bedrock. The failure should have taken the path of least resistance which would have been knocking out the vertical supports holding up the floors. As more floors pancaked, the effect should have accelerated. When the smoke cleared, we should have seen the tower backbones exposed and still standing, with a 115 floors worth of rubble at the base..

[AZCat]

101. It's a little more complicated than that

We still don't know exactly how the collapse occurred - the final NIST report was due in December 2004 but I haven't seen it yet. The interim reports are a good source of information about the collapse if you are interested, but they don't address many of the common scenarios discussed here (demolition, pods, drones) so if you are looking for anything related to that then the NIST reports will disappoint you.

I can't give you a substantive answer because I am still reading the interim reports (they're quite lengthy) but I can tell you this - the core columns (what I think you are calling the backbone) were not capable of withstanding lateral loads, and would have been vulnerable to buckling. The perimeter columns were the ones designed to handle lateral loads (wind mostly) along with axial (gravitational) and the relationship between the two kinds of columns during the impact and afterwards prior to collapse is of interest to the NIST (along with many professionals). How were loads transerred from sheared columns (both perimeter and core) to other columns, and what members played roles in that transferral? (the hat truss, for example) Until we have a better understanding of this it will be difficult to make any definitive statements. NIST is planning on revising the building codes and therefore wants to have a very good idea of the progression of the collapse.

[demodewd]

102. re: NIST

NIST is a federally subsidized agency in a big way. They aren't going to suggest controlled demolition. It's not even on the table. They start with the explanation that the buildings collapsed in the manner they did because of the planes or the fires or both. Period.

[Old and In the Way]

103. One interesting thing to consider in this discussion.

Was the WTC's designed for controlled demolition?

At some point, these buildings would approach their end-of-usable-life. There must have been some thought given on the building design to address eventual deconstruction?

I wonder if the design specifically accommodated a controlled pancaking of the floors with the "backbone" or core acting as a guide for the floors to be dropped.

I'd be quite interested in knowing if there was a deconstruction plan that utilized this scenario. Seems to me that the costs to dismantle the WTC floor-by-floor would be about 1000x more expensive then a building design using the above scenario.

Now, if that was the plan......why did the core collapse?

[AZCat]

107. You are correct

I am not a proponent of the demolition theory but I understand that there are those that are, and I that is why I stated that the NIST report doesn't address demolition in post #101 - I didn't want to mislead anyone.



On Edit: groggy and can't type...

[Old and In the Way]

104. I am sure it is a lot more complicated than I've stated in my posts here.

No doubt....but I've yet to hear any satisfactory explanation to address why the entire core disappeared. I can believe that the horizontal steel carrier beams, under the right fire conditions could weaken, distort, and eventually fail. But that does not address what happened to the core.

Here's a relevant blurb from "How Stuff Works" with regards to the box core and the footings for this box. http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm

The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.

The outer box, measuring 208 feet by 208 feet (63x63 m), was made up of 14-inch (36-cm) wide steel columns, 59 per building face, spaced just over 3 feet (1 m) apart. On every floor above the plaza level, the spaces between the columns housed 22-inch (56-cm) windows. Yamasaki, who had a pronounced fear of heights, felt that the small windows made the building feel more secure. The columns were covered with aluminum, giving the towers a distinctive silver color. The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators, stairwells and restrooms.


<>

The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.

The outer box, measuring 208 feet by 208 feet (63x63 m), was made up of 14-inch (36-cm) wide steel columns, 59 per building face, spaced just over 3 feet (1 m) apart. On every floor above the plaza level, the spaces between the columns housed 22-inch (56-cm) windows. Yamasaki, who had a pronounced fear of heights, felt that the small windows made the building feel more secure. The columns were covered with aluminum, giving the towers a distinctive silver color. The inner box at the core of each tower measured about 135 feet by 85 feet (41x26 m). Its 47 heavy steel columns surrounded a large open area housing elevators, stairwells and restrooms.

<>

Basic spread footing design

Near the base of each tower, at the plaza level, the narrowly spaced perimeter support columns rested on "column trees." The arched column trees spread the weight from the narrowly spaced columns over thicker columns spaced about 10 feet (3 m) apart. Each of these columns rested on additional, smaller support footings in the foundation.

The only way I can see that "interior box" come down is if the feet were taken out at the bottom. That's why I think those spikes are so relevant to this discussion.

[demodewd]

105. by the way

Maybe a bit off the subject here(not really) but I've been reading a thread out of http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=523 and copied this chart.

plaguepuppy just signed in as a new member. It should be a good thread to follow in the days to come.

[AZCat]

106. I'm not quite sure I understand what your question is...

I think you might be having some trouble with the concept of "buckling". If so, here is an introduction to stresses in columns and it talks about buckling.

If that isn't what your question is then I could use some clarification.



On Edit: spelling

[Old and In the Way]

108. Question?

I'm trying to make sense of those spikes and why the inner core box disappeared at the same moment that the outer box did.

I think you ought to lay off the snide remarks and just focus on explaining those points.

[AZCat]

109. Whoa...

I don't know how you're interpreting my remarks as "snide". If I did come off as snide, I apologize - it is easy to misinterpret someone's intent on a message board - but I do not intend to be rude or condescending.

Did you read the link I posted regarding buckling? I am trying to explain a possible failure path for the core columns but I don't see what you are missing.

The core columns would have collapsed at the same time as the perimeter columns for two possible reasons - the transient axial loading on the columns could have exceeded the compressive yield strength of the column causing it to shear (fail) or the loading could have exceeded the Johnson-Euler curve limits for that particular slenderness ratio (which might have changed due to damaged lateral supports), causing it to buckle (and fail).

[Old and In the Way]

110. Anything's possible.

I've pretty much agreed that the floor failure could be assigned to the weakening horizontal carriers. Failure of the exterior columns would seem to logically follow the collapse of the floors.

But I just can't make the intuitive leap to understanding why the center box goes at the same rate that the floors do. The interior structure is a seperate set of massive vertical beams that are tied together from the sub-basement to the top floor. I don't see what compression forces are at play to drop that at the same time and rate based solely on the floor failures.

And that's why the siesmic spikes are important, IMHO. If the foundational supports are blown, the siesmic spikes make sense and the center core collapse can then follow along with the floors.

[Christophera]

125. FEMA Lied About Basic Construction Configuration

Here is what FEMA said the core looked like. Multiple steel core columns.



Shortly after 9-11 this core was supposed to be the official core??



People in the uk still think it looks like that.

Neither of them can look like this halfway down.



This site has a diagram I've crudely altered to represent the steel reinforced cast concrete tube that comprised the inner tube of the "tube in a tube" construction of the Twin Towers.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

FEMA lied to create more believable conditions for the bigger lie.

[leftofthedial]

129. a few trillion $$

is more like what they've taken

[Dancing_Dave]

136. The hot spots deep in ground zero rubble are a certain fact!

And it is a fact of enormous long-health consequences for New Yorkers!
http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:lN2QiM2F5O4J:www.nyenvirolaw.org/PDF/Newsday-9-10-03-FullEffectsOfWTCpollutionMayNeverBeKnown.pdf+%22Thomas+Cahill%22+9/11&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[frankly_fedup2]

118. and yet, they found one of the main hijackers passports

with his ID in it. Also, before the end of the day, didn't they have the pictures of all 18 of the hijackers up on the news?

I understand you are more educated than I and understand some things more then me with regards to what happened; however, the thing that has bothered me the most was how BOTH of the towers pancaked perfectly down. That would mean each floor had melted almost exactly because when the planes hit, people talked of they felt the buildings move and wobble. Also, the second building that was hit fell first. WTC Tower two was not hit dead center like WTC one was. I just don't believe the perfect pancaking of both buildings. I know I saw it happen, but I think both buildings got some help along the way. Why or how I don't know, but something else was going on that day. It seemed like someone was directing all of the events that day.

[Dancing_Dave]

119. Anyone can claim to be a physicist on the internet

But you sure don't talk like any physicist I know!

[seemslikeadream]

6. galvanic corrosion?

Out of the blue, a new source came forward with information that in 1989 there was a plan being designed and priced to put up scaffolding, take the WTC towers down and rebuild them. The reason stated was not only asbestos related, but also because of a considerable design flaw in the WTC towers involving galvanic corrosion resulting from direct contact of dissimilar metals. In this instance, the heavy exterior aluminum panels were reportedly directly connected to the steel superstructure of the WTC towers. The price in 1989 was reportedly $5.6 billion to do this demolition and rebuilding to correct what would be a serious design flaw.

If that is the case, there would have been rapid and very damaging corrosion to the steel superstructure due to a process that is called galvanic corrosion. The Statute of Liberty had to be repaired for that same reason where the copper exterior had over time come into contact with the iron skeleton structure inside that makes the shape of the monument, so the process can occur in structures standing in air.

Evidently someone did not want to spend $5.6 billion (1989 dollars) to tear the WTC towers down and rebuild them properly, without the asbestos and without the defect that would rapidly deteriorate the superstructure of the building.

more
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/121704Schwarz/121704schwarz.html

[jmowreader]

34. The WTC and the Statue of Liberty are two different corrosion cases

The "galvanic series" says how metals will react when placed in contact with one another.

When two dissimilar metals are placed in proximity to one another with an electrolyte between them--water is an electrolyte, and it doesn't take much--the metal-electrolyte-metal combination will form a battery, with one metal acting as the anode and the other the cathode. Metal will migrate from the anode to the cathode.

ANODIC METALS

Magnesium

Zinc

Aluminum

Iron and iron alloys (steel)

Copper and copper alloys

CATHODIC METALS

(I left out a LOT of metals on this series. There are a lot of metals between iron and copper, but magnesium, zinc and aluminum are bunched up real close together. I put magnesium and zinc on this truncated chart because they're used as protective metals--magnesium in water heaters and zinc as galvanization. They're anodic to everything, so they give their lives, so to speak, for the protection of the product underneath them.)

According to the galvanic series, the Statue of Liberty's frame should have corroded as the copper pulled the iron out of the framework. Also according to the galvanic series, the panels on the WTC should have dissolved in contact with the steel but the frame should have been fine.

However, I'm calling bullshit on this for one reason: structural steel comes to you painted with zinc-rich paint, which should have protected the aluminum panels from the effects of the steel. The galvanic series is not a recent discovery; they had to have known that attaching unprotected aluminum to unprotected steel is bad, m'kay?

[seemslikeadream]

50. How would one know for sure if the steel had been painted?

Do you know?

“It was not just to boost everyone’s morale,” says Wayne Chilewski, project manager at Bridgewater Protective Coatings (Bridgewater, NJ), the company chosen to paint the 1,450 tons of steel beams and girders that would become the skeletal foundation of the new underground train station. “It was to show the rest of the world that we’re not going to let anything stop us from going on and proceeding with our lives.”

http://www.ippmagazine.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/coverstory/BNPCoverStoryItem/0,6895,111893,00.html

What about that meeting in '89?

[jmowreader]

56. It's a steel industry standard to paint it before delivery

Unprotected steel tends to rust away quickly, so they spray a coat of paint on all structural steel at the steelyard.

The paint they use is that butt-ugly brick red color you've seen on steel forever, but it's all painted and it has been since they started using structural steel.

They're tearing down an old furniture store on Raeford Road...this building has to be 50 years old, and the steel they're pulling out of it is all painted.

[seemslikeadream]

63. OK sounds logical to me but what about the asbestos?

http://www.egilman.com/new_jone_day/gracewtc.htm
"WR Grace Asbestos containing insulation was used at the World Trade Center (WTC). James Cintani stated that Grace Vermiculite did not contain asbestos. Unfortunately this was not true this material was 2-5 percent asbestos. 100,000 80 pound bags of this vermiculite was used in the WTC. In addition 9,150 pounds of MonoKote 3 was used at the WTC. Monokote 3 was about 20 percent asbestos. Therefore in total about 201,183 pounds of pure asbestos fiber from Grace was used in the WTC."

Although Halliburton is an enormous operation with more than 100,000 employees in 120 countries, it is a relatively small player when it comes to asbestos litigation, at least when compared with W.R. Grace & Co., GAF and the Johns Manville Corp. Nevertheless, Halliburton has spent $99 million to settle or dispose of 129,650 asbestos suits, according to company records.

From:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/9/12/192330/380

WR Grace Asbestos containing insulation was used at the World Trade Center (WTC). James Cintani stated that Grace Vermiculite did not contain asbestos. Unfortunately this was not true this material was 2-5 percent asbestos. 100,000 80 pound bags of this vermiculite was used in the WTC. In addition 9,150 pounds of MonoKote 3 was used at the WTC. Monokote 3 was about 20 percent asbestos. Therefore in total about 201,183 pounds of pure asbestos fiber from Grace was used in the WTC.

From:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/...

White House budget office thwarts EPA warning on asbestos-laced insulation

The Environmental Protection Agency was on the verge of warning millions of Americans that their attics and walls might contain asbestos-contaminated insulation. But, at the last minute, the White House intervened, and the warning has never been issued.

The announcement to warn the public was expected in April. It was to accompany a declaration by the EPA of a public health emergency in Libby, Mont. In that town near the Canadian border, ore from a vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Ore from the Libby mine was shipped across the nation and around the world, ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses and schools across America. Zonolite insulation was sold throughout North America from the 1940s through the 1990s. Almost all of the vermiculite used in the insulation came from the Libby mine, last owned by W.R. Grace & Co.

Interviews and documents show that just days before the EPA was set to make the declaration, the plan was thwarted by the White House Office of Management and Budget, which had been told of the proposal months earlier. Former EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus, who worked for Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, called the decision not to notify homeowners of the dangers posed by Zonolite insulation "the wrong thing to do." "When the government comes across this kind of information and doesn't tell people about it, I just think it's wrong, unconscionable, not to do that," he said. " What right does the government have to conceal these dangers? It just doesn't make sense."

The question about what to do about Zonolite insulation was not the only asbestos-related issue in which the White House intervened. In January, in an internal EPA report on problems with the agency's much-criticized response to the terrorist attacks in New York City, a section on "lessons learned" said there was a need to release public health and emergency information without having it reviewed and delayed by the White House."

The EPA's files are filled with studies documenting the toxicity of tremolite, how even minor disruptions of the material by moving boxes, sweeping the floor or doing repairs in attics can generate asbestos fibers. Most of those who have studied the needle-sharp tremolite fibers in the Libby ore consider them far more dangerous than other asbestos fibers. In October, the EPA team leading the cleanup of lower Manhattan after the attacks of Sept. 11 went to Libby to meet with Peronard and his crew. The EPA had reversed an early decision and announced that it would be cleaning asbestos from city apartments.

Peronard told the visitors from New York just how dangerous tremolite is. He talked about the hands-on research in Libby of Dr. Alan Whitehouse, a pulmonologist who had worked for NASA and the Air Force on earlier projects before moving to Spokane, Wash. "Whitehouse's research on the people here gave us our first solid lead of how bad this tremolite is," Peronard said.

Whitehouse has not only treated 500 people from Libby who are sick and dying from exposure to tremolite. The chest specialist also has almost 300 patients from Washington shipyards and the Hanford, Wash., nuclear facility who are suffering health effects from exposure to the more prevalent chrysotile asbestos. Comparing the two groups, Whitehouse has demonstrated that the tremolite from Libby is 10 times as carcinogenic as chrysotile and probably 100 times more likely to produce mesothelioma than chrysotile.

From:

http://www.msnbc.com/local/pisea/102011.asp?cp1=1

Murray promises to renew push for asbestos warnings

Dec. 30 - After revelations that the Bush administration squelched public health warnings about a widely used form of insulation that contains cancer-causing asbestos, Sen. Patty Murray vowed yesterday to renew her fight for a public education campaign. Murray, D-Wash., said she will demand an explanation this week for why warnings planned last spring by the Environmental Protection Agency were called off at the last minute by high-ranking Bush administration officials.

Internal EPA documents show that about 15 million to 35 million of the nation's approximately 105 million households contain a brand of insulation known as Zonolite. Mined for decades in Libby, Mont., Zonolite contains a particularly lethal form of asbestos known as tremolite. "I just find it astounding that when this kind of information is available that can save people's lives, that this administration has decided to keep that secret and not let people know," Murray said. "Here's a health risk we can do something about."

Murray's co-sponsor, Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., died in October in a plane crash.

OMB and EPA squash the EPA Report


December 29, 2002
Bush administration squashes EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos.
According to the Barre-Montpelier Times Argus and Wichita Eagle, the Bush administration has squashed the release of an EPA public health warning that insulation in 15 to 35 million U.S. homes is probably contaminated with an extremely lethal form of asbestos. The warning was originally planned to be released in April 2002, along with a declaration of a public health emergency in Libby, Montana, where ore from a W.R. Grace vermiculite mine was contaminated with an extremely lethal asbestos fiber called tremolite that has killed or sickened thousands of miners and their families. Shipping records from W.R. Grace show that at least 15.6 billion pounds of vermiculite ore was shipped from Libby to 750 plants and factories throughout North America, with between a third and half ending up in insulation called Zonolite that was used in millions of homes, businesses and schools from the 1940s through the 1990s.

In early April 2002, the U.S. EPA had a public health warning ready to go: News releases had been written and rewritten, and lists of governors to call and politicians to notify had been compiled. But the declaration was never made - just days before EPA was set to make the declaration, the warning was squashed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), even though the EPA had already greatly watered down the warning at the direction of the OMB.

Both OMB and EPA acknowledge that the OMB was actively involved in quashing the warning, but neither agency would discuss how or why. EPA’s chief spokesman Joe Martyak said, "Contact OMB for the details," while OMB spokeswoman Amy Call said, "These questions will have to be addressed to the EPA." Both agencies have also refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to provide documents to and from OMB about the asbestos warning.
http://www.eces.org/articles/000256.php

[AZCat]

65. Asbestos isn't a problem unless you disturb it

Or, of course, blow up a building containing it.

I don't know why there was a problem with the WTC asbestos - yes the Bush Admin was/is covering Cheney's ass, but I don't know what about the WTC asbestos would have been covered in the class-action suits against Halliburton.

Note - the first link you provided asks for a username and password, and I couldn't read the article.

[jmowreader]

74. I'm trying to figure out where that exact number came from

Let's analyze that 201,183 pounds of "pure asbestos fiber" that was used in the WTC, shall we?

We know about the 9,150 lbs of Monokote 3, which is a very strange number, and I will explain. Just for the hell of it, we'll say the discontinued Monokote 3 came in 75-pound bags--this is how masonry cement is packaged, so we'll use that number. According to W.R. Grace, Monokote contained "gypsum, expanded vermiculite, purchased chrysotile asbestos and Portland cement."

Cementitious bag goods come on pallets containing either 42 or 56 bags of material, depending on what it is--either six layers of seven bags or seven layers of eight bags.

So let me see...9,150 lbs. of this product in 75-pound bags equals 122 bags of product. If it's on 42-bag skids, you need 2.9 skids of material, and on 56-bag skids, you need 2.1 skids.

Now let me get this straight: You are purchasing materials for the construction of two 110-floor buildings...and you're buying partial skids of ANYTHING? I think not. No, you buy it by the truckload, and a W.R. Bonsal concrete truck holds 18 skids of concrete. I figure W.R. Grace's concrete trucks hold the same.

I also tried running this number with 94-pound, 80-pound and 60-pound bags and got partial-bag answers. If you aren't going to order part of a skid of this stuff, you're not going to order part of a BAG of it either!

But because I believe in humoring the humorless, let's use 9,150 pounds as gospel. One-fifth of 9,150 pounds is 1,830 pounds--leaving 199,353 pounds of asbestos from the vermiculite. We know there was 8 million pounds of vermiculite in the building, which gives an asbestos concentration of a hair less than 2.5 percent. In a range from 2 to 5 percent, I go with the middle figure--3.5 percent. Meaning there was 280,000 pounds of asbestos from vermiculite in those two buildings.

They apparently painted the WTC's asbestos with an encapsulating agent in 1999, making the insulation safe unless someone decides to blow the building up.

But numbers notwithstanding, we can all agree on two things: there was a shitload of asbestos in that building, and thanks to Dubya's not wanting to be president at that time it was floating around the skies of Manhattan.

[seemslikeadream]

76. More that 3,000 products in use today contain asbestos

not just the insulation.

http://www.mesothelioma.net/AsbestosProducts.html



For the U.S. insurance industry asbestos-related losses could eventually reach as much as $65 billion,

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/asbestos /




I started this really lonely battle with good friend Senator Wellstone

Sen. Murray Opposes SB 2290, Praises Dr. Bret Williams, Dr. Harvey Pass, Chris Hahn and MARF

Remarks by Senator Patty Murray on Asbestos Legislation

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=220630

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, April 21, 2004

Mr. President, I rise today to share my serious concerns with the asbestos liability bill now before the Senate. As my colleagues know, this is not just another bill for me. This is something I’ve spent years learning about, educating my colleagues about, and writing legislation to address.

In fact, my work on asbestos started 3 years ago this very month, when I asked the Senate HELP Committee to hold a hearing on asbestos exposure in the workplace. I started this as a really lonely battle with good friend Senator Wellstone. We held press conferences, and it seemed like no one came. Senator Baucus and Senator Cantwell were with us, but it was a very lonely fight.

That’s why today it is so great to watch my colleagues like Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Dayton and Senator Leahy moving this discussion to such a productive level. They have taken the time to listen to victims, and I think that if everyone did we’d have a much more balanced bill before us today.

I’m pleased that after all these years of working with victims, family members, and doctors -- the full Senate is now engaged in a debate about asbestos.

I am also pleased that many of the things I have been fighting for have been included in this legislation. This bill includes the ban on asbestos that I first introduced two years ago. That is an important acknowledgement of what I told the Judiciary Committee last June, "If Congress is going to prevent any future lawsuits, then Congress must try to prevent any more asbestos casualties, by banning the use of asbestos."

So I am pleased by some of the progress in this bill, but I am also deeply disturbed by what this bill will do to people whose lives have been torn apart by asbestos, to future victims, to family members, and to average Americans who are being exposed to deadly asbestos everyday without even knowing it.

After listening to victims, hearing their stories, and looking them in the eye, there is no way I could vote for this inadequate and unbalanced bill.

I’m Standing Up for Many

As I’ve learned about asbestos over the past three years, I have been troubled by the duplicity of some companies, by the negligence of our own government, and by the absolute horror that asbestos inflicts on people. But throughout this process, I have also been touched by the commitment and optimism of victims. Some of them realize it’s too late for them, but they want to make sure that no other American goes through the horror they have experienced.

After working with them, I know I am not just standing here on the Senate floor as a single Senator. I’m standing here on behalf of all of the people I have been honored to meet and stand with over the past three years.

I’m standing here on behalf of people like Brian Harvey, Gayla Benefield, Bret Williams, Ralph Busch, Marv Sather, and George Biekkola. They were all exposed to asbestos through no fault of their own.

I’m standing here on behalf of family members of asbestos victims. People like Sue Vento, the wife the late Congressman Bruce Vento of Minnesota, Sue Harvey, and Lt. Col. James Zumwalt, the son of Navy hero Elmo Zumwalt.

I’m standing here on behalf of doctors who have labored to save their patients against a merciless killer. Doctors like Michael Harbut, Alan Whitehouse, and Harvey Pass, who not only provided medical care, but worked to raise awareness and call for needed research.

I’m standing here on behalf of public health leaders like Dr. Richard Lemen, the former Assistant Surgeon General of the United States, Dr. Phil Landrigan, and people like Andrew Schneider and Barry Castleman – who have worked to warn the public about these dangers.

And, I’m standing here on behalf of researchers and advocates. People like Chris Hahn of the Mesothelima Applied Research Foundation and advocates at the Environmental Working Group.

All of these people have stood with me at press conferences and have testified before Senate hearings calling for us to help the victims and to ban asbestos. We have a real obligation to them, and I’m standing here on the Senate floor today to make sure the Senate does right by people who have been wronged.

George Biekkola

Let me share one of their voices with you. In July 2001, the HELP committee held that hearing I requested on Workplace Safety and Asbestos Exposure. One of the witnesses was Mr. George Biekkola of Michigan, a World War II veteran and a community leader who helped bring a hockey rink to the children of his community.

Those of us who were at that hearing three years ago will never forget what he said. He broke down several times as he read his statement, but his message was clear. He told us that he had spent 30 years working at the Cleveland Cliff Iron Company in Michigan. He operated a hard rock drill and was exposed to asbestos dust. He was forced to retire at the age of 60 because asbestos had scarred his lungs and reduced his lung capacity by one-third.

At that hearing he told us, quote, "I thought I’d be spending my retirement traveling out West with my wife, hunting deer up in the mountains. But today, I can’t." He said that he couldn’t exert himself because his heart was weak and that he had to be careful because a simple case of pneumonia could kill him.

He told us, "This isn’t how I thought I’d be spending my retirement, but when I think about the other guys I worked with -- I guess I came out lucky."

He said, "I’m here today to tell you my story so that maybe someone else working in a mine or a brake shop or a factory won’t lose the things I have lost."

He concluded his statement with these words. "Senators, please make sure that what happened to me won’t happen to anyone else . . . Workers like me are counting on you to protect us. Please don’t let us down."

Mr. President, I’m sad to report that George Biekkola died two weeks ago today from asbestosis and mesothelioma. Until the end, he was looking out for other victims. In fact, at his funeral last Saturday, his family displayed a photograph of him testifying at that Senate hearing.

George isn’t with us today, but his words ring as loudly now as they did three years ago – Senators, don’t let us down. That is why I’ve been working on asbestos for the past three years, and that is why I cannot support this inadequate bill.

Mr. President, after all the things that Americans like George Biekkola have been through, after all they have lost, after all their families have lost, and after all they have done to protect others, I will not let them down, and that’s why I cannot support this bill.

Context

Before I turn to the specifics, I want to put this discussion in context. For decades, we’ve been pumping this poison into Americans on purpose and by accident. It’s wrecked lives, families, fortunes, and it’s been a problem for many businesses.

Asbestos is everywhere, and it’s killing us. We’ve got to stop putting this killer in products. We’ve got to stop importing products that contain asbestos. We’ve got to figure out a way to "make whole" everyone who’s been affected by this epidemic, and we need to do it in a balanced way that gives certainty and equity to both victims and companies.

This process has been an education for me because, like many Americans I thought asbestos had been banned a long time ago. In 1989, the EPA did try to ban asbestos, but that effort was overturned in a lawsuit from the asbestos industry. Ten years later in 1999, reporter Andrew Schneider and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer published articles about a disturbing trend in the small mining town of Libby, Montana. Residents there are suffering from extraordinarily high rates of asbestos related disease.

At many plants where vermiculite from Libby was processed and then shipped, waste rock left over from the expansion process was given away for free. I learned that people used this free waste rock in their yards, driveways and gardens. This picture shows Justin and Tim Jorgensen climbing on waste rock given out by Western Minerals, Inc. in St. Paul, Minnesota sometime in the 1970’s. According to W.R. Grace records, this rock contained between 2 and 10 percent tremolite asbestos. This rock produced airborne asbestos concentrations 135 times higher that OSHA’s current standard for workers. We have to do right by Justin and Tim, and those are the people I’m thinking about as I look at this bill.

I also learned that our country is far behind others. The United States remains the only industrialized country beside Canada that has not yet banned asbestos. More than 30 million pounds of asbestos are still consumed in the United States each year.

A Continuing Danger

I learned that asbestos is still found today in over 3,000 common products in the US, including baby powder, cosmetics, brake pads, pipes, hair dryers, ceiling tiles and vinyl flooring. It is still legal in 2004 to construct buildings with asbestos cement shingles and to treat them with asbestos roof coatings. It is still legal to construct new water systems using asbestos cement pipes imported from other countries. It is still legal today for cars and trucks to be made and serviced with asbestos brake pads and linings.

Workers in this country are still being exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos. According to OSHA, "an estimated 1.3 million employees in construction and general industry face significant asbestos exposures on the job."

Washington State Impact

Asbestos has taken a particularly large toll on the people of my state. According to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group, King County has the fourth-highest number of deaths related to asbestos in the country. Three other counties – Kitsap (24th), Pierce (28th) and Snohomish (52nd) all rank in the top 100 for asbestos-related deaths. Overall, Washington state ranks eighth in asbestos-related deaths nationwide.

Just last week in Spokane, Washington our state Department of Health announced that 100 former workers at a vermiculite factory likely inhaled deadly asbestos fibers and should seek advice from their doctors.

They also warned that the children and spouses who lived with these workers could become ill from particles that were carried home with loved ones on clothing, skin and in hair. Given the known dangers of this mineral, we should all be asking - why are we still using it? Why are we still adding it to products on purpose where there are perfectly acceptable substitutes?

My Work on Asbestos

Americans in every walk of life and in every corner of this country have been exposed, and we’ve got to protect them. That’s why I’ve worked to do a series of things over the past few years. On June 18, 2002, I introduced the Ban Asbestos in America Act. I reintroduced this bill again last May as Senate Bill number 1115. I want to thank all the Senators who have cosponsored my bill: Senators Baucus, Boxer, Cantwell, Daschle, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Hollings, Jeffords, Lautenberg, Leahy and Reid.

I’ve pushed the EPA to warn homeowners about the dangers of Zonolite insulation, which today is in the attics of 35 million homes, schools and businesses. I’ve urged the EPA to warn brake mechanics about the deadly asbestos dust they are exposed to on the job. I’ve asked OSHA to increase its efforts to enforce existing regulations that attempt to protect automobile brake mechanics.

I’ve shared my concerns with legislators in Canada, the country that is the largest source of America’s asbestos imports. I testified at a hearing on Libby, Montana, and I testified before the Judiciary Committee last July.

Asbestos liability is a real problem. It’s a problem for victims, and it’s a problem for companies. We need a balanced solution. Unfortunately, this bill falls short in 6 ways.

6 Problems with this Bill

First, it is unfair to victims because the awards are too small – even smaller than many would get if they were allowed a day in court.

Second, it could lock future victims out of getting help because the trust fund is inadequate.

Third, it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos. It does not include the education campaign that we know is needed and that I have been pushing for over the past three years.

Fourth, it falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases.

Fifth, it makes family members jump through too many restrictive hurdles.

Sixth it allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that family members receive - unfairly reducing the award they deserve and treating them much differently that other federal compensation programs.

Let me discuss each of those in detail.

1. Awards Are Too Small

First, the awards are too small. Many people who have had their lives torn apart by asbestos will actually do worse under this bill than they would in court. For example, awards for lung cancer victims who have more than 15 years of exposure to asbestos are limited to $25,000 - $75,000, even though most victims will die within a year. Victims with asbestosis who have lost 20% to 40% of their breathing capacity – many who will be disabled for life – will receive only $85,000. That is far less than their lost wages and medical costs. This bill gives them less than they deserve. At the same time, it blocks the courthouse door to victims who have staggering medical bills, lost wages and other damages. I don’t see how Congress can leave asbestos victims worse off than they are today, but that’s what this bill would do.

2. The Trust Fund is Too Small

Second, the trust fund is too small to compensate all victims, but that is just one of the problems with this trust fund. I believe a successful trust fund would provide fair and adequate compensation to all victims and would bring reasonable financial certainty to defendant companies and insurers. To do that, the trust fund must include four things: fair award values, appropriate medical criteria, adequate funding, and fast processing.

The system for processing claims must allow victims to get prompt payments without the complications, time and expense of a traditional lawsuit. Unfortunately, the trust fund in this bill falls far short of what is needed. I have already discussed how the award values are unfair.

In addition, the trust fund is not adequately funded. In fact, the trust fund in this bill has been slashed dramatically from the original Hatch legislation. In the Judiciary Committee’s bill, the trust fund was $153 billion. But in this bill, the trust fund has been slashed by over $40 billion.

Now, the trust fund didn’t just shrink on its own. It was reduced after closed-door negotiations that included only one side – the defendant companies and the insurance industry. It was not based on the actual needs of victims. Instead, it was based on what insurers and businesses were willing to pay. This one-sided agreement reduced the funding provided in S. 1125 by more than $40 billion. Making matters worse, an additional $10 billion in contingent funds does not become available for 24 years. The United States Senate should not adopt a policy of adjusting award values just to meet an arbitrary and artificial limit reached in a backroom with only one side present.

Not only was this figure arrived at in an unfair way, but it’s clear that it is not enough to meet the needs of current and future asbestos victims. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the cost of this bill at $134 billion. This bill only provides $109 billion – so there is a significant shortfall already.

But there is very good reason to believe that the shortfall will be even larger. Recent claims in the Manville trust shows much higher than expected claims for many asbestos diseases. Those claims also show that recent mortality and morbidity data increase the likelihood that the number of asbestos related diseases and related claims will exceed current estimates.

If this fund becomes insolvent, it will leave victims without the help they need. Because of that possibility, last year, Senators inserted a number of protections during the Judiciary Committee mark-up.

Important Protections Were Removed

Tragically, the bill before us today throws away those carefully-crafted, bipartisan protections.

For example, we had protections for victims in case the trust fund became insolvent. Those protections in the Biden amendment were stripped from this bill.

We had protections that guaranteed that asbestos victims would preserve their legal rights until the trust fund is operational. That’s important because if this bill becomes law, it will end up in court, and there will be no mechanism for victims and their families to get help while this law is tied up in court. We solved that problem with the Feinstein amendment, but again -- those protections were stripped from this bill.

So overall this trust fund is inadequate. If we are going to lock the courthouse doors to victims, we’ve got to be 100 percent certain that the trust fund will have enough money to cover all of the 600,000 current claims -- and the thousands more that may be filed later. This is especially important because asbestos diseases have a very long latency period – often decades long – making it hard for us to predict today who will need help in the future.

If we pass this inadequate trust fund, my constituents – and hundreds of thousands of other Americans -- will be left out in the cold with only the faded memories of their loved ones to carry them through this tragic ordeal.

3. No Public Education Campaign

My third concern with this bill is that it keeps Americans in the dark about the dangers of asbestos exposure. This bill completely drops the education campaign that was in both of my asbestos bills. One of the reasons why asbestos takes such a deadly toll is because people are unaware that they are being exposed it.

Ralph Busch of Spokane

Ralph Busch exposed himself and his wife to asbestos when he renovated his home. He never knew about the dangers until he happened to read a story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Today, his dream house is abandoned, his credit is ruined, and his health is a constant worry. Ralph Busch did not do anything wrong. He couldn’t have known about the danger of Zonolite insulation. There is no way that Ralph Busch could have known that by buying and renovating an old house he would eventually expose his family to dangerous levels of asbestos.

We must make sure others do know about this public health risk by providing additional resources to educate the American public about the dangers of worksite and home exposures to products that contain asbestos.

We must also provide safety information to homeowners on what they can do to prevent asbestos exposures at home, particularly in the attic and basement.

Workers Unaware of Dangers

In addition to homeowners, many workers are exposed to asbestos on the job. Often they are not aware of the danger, and they don’t have the protective equipment they need.

I am heartened to hear that EPA, ATSDR and NIOSH are now proactively reaching out to consumers and workers to warn them to stay away from vermiculite attic insulation. But, I am very concerned that the EPA, prodded by a request from the law firm of the former acting agency administrator, is considering revising its "Guidance for Preventing Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics" to convey the false impression that brake repair work is no longer a risk.

Clearly, any effort by the EPA to downplay these risks flies in the face of current Congressional intent regarding the inherent health problems with exposure to asbestos in the workplace. I sincerely hope that EPA will not bow to the pressure of the industry and in fact strengthen its guidance for brake mechanics.

4. It Does Not Do Enough for Research, Tracking and Treatment

My fourth concern is that this bill does not do enough for research, tracking and treatment.

I want to thank the Senator Hatch for including some modest resources in his latest version of the bill – which should be used to establish mesothelioma research and treatment centers around the country. Yesterday I was pleased to hear Senator Hatch say that he would be willing to explore additional funding for asbestos research and treatment centers. These centers will be critical as the medical community works to develop new treatments and protocols for the variety of deadly cancers and diseases that exposure to asbestos brings to workers and their families.

Unfortunately, not included in S. 2290 are the resources needed to track the victims of mesothelioma and other asbestos causing cancers, and to conduct additional research about the harmful effects of this deadly material.

These are areas that doctors and other experts have told me time and again we must invest in. I heard from some of those doctors last month at a press conference I held, which Senator Reid and Senator Dayton attended. At the press conference, Dr. Bret Williams of North Carolina said, "As a doctor, a cancer patient, a husband and father, I am asking my government to take a stand. Fix the problem. Give us hope. Fund a mesothelioma research program. Please invest in a cure."

A surgeon from Detroit, Dr. Harvey Pass, told us that progress on asbestos diseases requires funding, and he said that funding, "remains absolutely insufficient to set up the type of collaborative approaches that already exist with lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer."

So the fourth problem with this bill is its inadequate support for research, tracking and treatment of asbestos diseases.

5. Treats Family Members Unfairly

My fifth concern with this bill is the way it treats family members. Under this bill, family members of victims will be forced to jump through an additional series of hoops, reducing the likelihood they will ever receive an award.

Susan Lawes & Spokane Families

Let’s remember, these family members have lost their loved ones. In many cases they are vulnerable themselves because they came into contact with asbestos fibers through a family member. Take the case of Susan Lawes. Her father was a pipe fitter and was exposed to asbestos on the job. When he came home from work, asbestos fibers were still on his clothes. He’d walk through the door after the end of a long day and give his daughter a hug. Last month, Susan was diagnosed with an asbestos disease. As she told me, I am literally dying because I hugged my dad.

Susan and so many people like her are not treated fairly under this bill. The children and the spouses of workers should not have to prove five years of exposure to asbestos from their husbands and fathers as they would under this bill. They also should not be forced to appear before a special Physicians Review Board in order to determine their medical condition and whether they are eligible for a compensatory award.

It’s the same for people in Spokane, Washington. Spokane is one of the 22 sites that EPA has determined is still contaminated. Why are we forcing these innocent victims of take-home asbestos exposure to jump through extraordinary hoops to determine their eligibility for an award?

So my fifth concern is the unfair way this bill treats family members – making them jump through hurdles that reduce the chance they will ever get the help they need.

6. Allows Insurance Companies to Reduce Victims’ Awards

Finally, this bill allows insurance companies to reduce any awards that victims actually receive – something that is not found in similar federal plans.

This bill allows insurance companies to place liens on the awards that victims and family members receive.

I find it unconscionable that health insurance companies and other entities can recoup their costs by placing liens on the awards family members receive in compensation for their loss of a father, a husband, a son or a daughter.

These workers were often the only breadwinners in their households, but this bill tells their surviving family members that they can be sued by their health insurance provider for a substantial part of an award – an award that as I’ve shown may already be inadequate.

What’s especially disturbing is other federal compensation program do not allow this type of action, but for some reason, asbestos victims are being given fewer protections. The awards provided to victims in federal compensation programs like the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program and the Ricky Ray Hemophiliac Relief Fund Act are not subject to liens by workers compensation insurers. I don’t know why the authors want to treat asbestos victims differently, but I do know that it is not fair, and it’s one of the reasons why I can not support this bill.

So Mr. President, in the end, this bill falls far short of what victims deserve.

The awards are too small.
The trust fund is inadequate.
It fails to educate Americans about the dangers of asbestos.
It falls short on research, tracking and treatment for asbestos diseases.
It puts unfair burdens on family members.
It allows insurance companies to reduce a victim’s award.
I’ve been fighting on this for years, and it makes no sense that we could squander this moment with a bill that is so inadequate. George and Gayla and Ralph and Marv and Bret and Brian all deserve so much better, and I will continue to fight for them.

Mr. President, regardless of what happens with this bill, the one thing we must do is ban asbestos, and I assure my colleagues I will keep fighting for that. I do want to pass a law. We need a real solution. I don’t want companies going bankrupt. I don’t want victims going without the help they need. I still think we can do it, and I will continue to fight for a balanced and fair bill that will do right by victims across the country. We really have an obligation to them and their families. I’ve been fighting for them for three years, and no matter what happens this week, I’m not going to stop now.

*** POSTED APRIL 22, 2004 ***

http://www.mesothel.com/pages/murray_s2290_pag.htm

Senator Paul Wellstone and Mozambique's President Samora Machel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2167138
Wellstone Was Murdered"American Assassination," two professors explain how
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2332485
Plane Crashes, WR Grace, Deadly Asbestos, WTC Collapse & Wellstone
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/28856.html
The Paul Wellstone crash was.....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=561809

[jmowreader]

78. Someone didn't get the point of my last post...

None of the numbers you posted made a lick of sense--except for the 100,000 bags of vermiculite (when you start dealing with numbers that big, you round them off--we're probably looking at 1800 56-bag skids of vermiculite, which would come from the vendor on one hundred trucks) and the 20-percent asbestos content of Monokote 3.

The folks I really worry about when it comes to asbestos are ship breakers. Most ships are insulated with asbestos; certainly the ones they're cutting up now are. Work in that close a proximity to that much asbestos for 30 or 40 years, and you'll come down with all the asbestos diseases.

[seemslikeadream]

79. Do you have an answer to post 72?

thanks

[jmowreader]

88. Kind of.

I don't know what they used, but I know what I would have used.

I would have designed a little plate out of ultra-high-molecular-weight polypropylene, one with little UHMW tubes for bolts protruding through both sides. Then I'd have had a few tons of UHMW flat washers made.

When I ordered the aluminum plates, I'd have had them made with predrilled bolt holes.

The drill would be: push the plate onto the steel, push the aluminum onto the tubes, put a washer on a grade-8 bolt, stick it in the bolt hole, put another washer on followed by a grade-8 nut, then tighten the hell out of it. Since UHMW polypropylene isn't on the galvanic series at all, the aluminum plates would have lasted until someone came along and blew the building up.

Depending on how it is made, stainless can be very close on the galvanic series to aluminum--therefore negating the need for all of the washers and plates. In that case, just stick a piece of plastic over the end of the steel, then bolt the plate on.

They probably just bolted it to the side of the building with grade-8 bolts and nuts (the strongest kind) and called it good.

[MercutioATC]

86. Just because they ordered full skids doesn't mean they used it all.

Concrete is, I believe, mixed to a formula (as the application requires). I don't think they would have thrown in an extra 10 or 12 bags just because they were left over.

[Jose Diablo]

72. I wonder

What sort of bolts or connectors were used to secure the aluminum panels to the steel frame?

[Quakerfriend]

9. Veeeeeeeeeeeery interesting!

As I learn more and more about this I ask:

Why aren't the 911 families speaking out about this? Surely, they must have read about all of the theories out there.

[seemslikeadream]

11. Some are

...

SH: Our case is alleging that Bush and his puppets Rice and Cheney and Mueller and Rumsfeld and so forth, Tenet, were all involved not o­nly in aiding and abetting and allowing 9/11 to happen but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain political advantage, to pursue a bogus political agenda o­n behalf of the neocons and their deluded thinking in the Middle East. I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis o­n this very subject – how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.



AJ: That’s right. They were all Straussian followers of a Nazi-like professor. And now they are setting it up here in America. Stanley, I know you deposed a lot of people and you’ve got your $7 million dollar lawsuit with hundreds of the victim’s families involved….



SH: 7 billion, 7 billion



AJ: Yeah, 7 billion. Can you go over some of the new and incriminating evidence you’ve got of them ordering the attack?



SH: Yes, let me just say that this is a taxpayers’ class action lawsuit as well as a suit o­n behalf of the families and the basic three arguments are they violated the Constitution by ordering this event. And secondly that they fraudulent Federal Claims Act, Title 31 of the U.S. Code in which Bush presented false and fraudulent evidence to Congress to get the Iraq war authorization. And, of course, he related it to 9/11 and claimed that Saddam was involved with that, and all these lies.



AJ: Tell you what, stay there. Stanley, we’ve got to break. Let’s come back and get into the evidence.



BREAK



AJ: Alright my friends, second hour, September 10th, 2004, the anniversary of the globalist attack coming up tomorrow. It’s an amazing individual we have o­n the line. Bob Dole’s former chief of staff, political scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others, he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He’s suing the U.S. government for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims’ families signing o­nto it – it’s a $7 billion lawsuit. And he is Stanley Hilton. I know that a lot of stations just joined us in Los Angeles and Rhode Island and Missouri and Florida and all over. Please sir, recap what you were just stating and then let’s get into the new evidence. And then we’ll get into why you are being harassed by the FBI, as other FBI people are being harassed who have been blowing the whistle o­n this. So, this is really getting serious. Stanley, tell us all about it.



SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not o­nly allowing 9/11 to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we had a witness who is married to o­ne of them. The hijackers were U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI and the CIA to spy o­n Arab groups in this country. They were controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered, personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this effect. It’s not just incompetence – in spite of the fact that he is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew about it. He, at o­ne point, there were rehearsals of this. The reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant o­n September 11th – when those videos showed that Andrew Card whispered in his ear the words about this he listened to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was another rehearsal. These people had dress rehearsed this many times. He had seen simulated videos of this. In fact, he even made a Freudian slip a few months later at a California press conference when he said he had, quote, “seen o­n television the first plane attack the first tower.” And that could not be possible because there was no video. What it was was the simulated video that he had gone over. So this was a personally government ordered thing.
more
http://www.memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3293

[jeanarrett]

80. Hilton references a website in this article

called deprogram.info. I tried to access it and immediately my computer picked up five viruses. I'm at work though and they didn't get through our firewall, but as soon as I attempted to access the site, I got them.

[3 DanO]

10. The records look just like what I would expect

When the towers collapsed there was a huge void carved out by the aircraft and fire. The upper section of each tower fell intact and slammed into the lower section like a hammer hitting a nail. The force of this impact would be carried straight down to the ground and result in a large seismic spike. After that, the falling debris would be hitting each floor on the way down sending more smaller shock waves to the ground as the towers disintegrated.

[Squatch]

14. The bulk of bedrock under Manhattan belongs to the

Fordham Gneiss formation.

http://www.dukelabs.com/Abstracts%20and%20Papers/CM1996c.htm



The seismographs that recorded readings from the impact of the twin towers are also embedded in the same rock formation. Gneiss is a highly conductive medium for shockwaves.

The seismographs are exactly what one would expect from these events occuring as explained by the collapse of the twin towers due to the impact of aircraft.

[demodewd]

75. I question your expectations

The upper section of each tower fell intact and slammed into the lower section like a hammer hitting a nail.

The upper section of the South Tower disintegrated from bottom to top at the initiation of the collapse. The top section did not initially act as a hammer to the base. Photographs show the sharp contrast of smoke and dust coloration from the top section as opposed to the base. This segregated phenomenon would not be apparent if the top section was truly driving down on the base. Also the top section, which was tilted at 22 degrees, would have crashed through the wall that it was angled over.This never occurred.

The top section was disintegrated via explosives from bottom to top. This explains its brief suspension in the air before gravity pulled the steel beams downward.

[Christophera]

126. Seismic Peak Before Debris Load Hits Ground

3 DanO wrote:

When the towers collapsed there was a huge void carved out by the aircraft and fire.

Hi DanO,
Perhaps the above sentence means to say that when the planes hit the towers they left a void and fuel fires, then later the towers collapsed. Let me emphasize that we don't need a seismometer to notice that the tower hit first, hit worst, burned worst fell last. This says something else was responsible for the towers demise.

3 DanO wrote:

The upper section of each tower fell intact and slammed into the lower section like a hammer hitting a nail.

Here is the top of WTC 1 falling to the south.



3 DanO wrote:

The force of this impact would be carried straight down to the ground and result in a large seismic spike.

I think what needs pointing out is that there was also a seismic spike at plane impact and the spike of the fall of debris peaked before the debris hit the ground. There were explosions in the basement at plane impact.

Stationary Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sub-basement level of the North Tower, gives a harrowing eyewitness account of numerous ground and sub-basement level  explosions in the on-line publication Chiefengineer. For example, “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

Clearly the seismic record shows the explosions inthe basement rather than the impact of a plane 90 floors off the ground. The North tower swayed 6 feet meaning that the ground coupling was very poor. The pane impact was horizontal and expressing minor downward forces or potential seismic wave propagation.

3 DanO wrote:

After that, the falling debris would be hitting each floor on the way down sending more smaller shock waves to the ground as the towers disintegrated.

"More smaller shock waves",

how does this work when the load of debris is increasing with the descent of the top of the towers?

What I'm saying is that the notion that floors, tubular concrete core, interior box columns, perimeter box columns, would just start falling apart to end up as pieces of steel with everything else ground up, is just not logical. The buildings were incredibly strong and could survive multiple hits as well as fire without suffering a structural failure.

They were built to demolish.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

There is no other way to create freefall.

[Ravenseye]

13. Here's My Question

I'm not an engineer or a physicist or anything, but when I saw them collapse they started from the top, above where the planes hit. After those came crashing down onto the rest of the tower the remainder of it just sort of crumpled up.

when I've seen buildings demolished by explosives in the base they seem to collapse down where the compression is at the base, ie the lower parts compress into each other while the top part of the building remains relatively intact as it collapses until it reaches that compression at the base.

From what I saw there was no compression at the base of the towers, it started at the top and then sort of cascaded downward.

How would explosives in the base cause this?

[demodewd]

77. point of impact

The explosives were initiated at the point of impact and worked their way down.The steel at the core base of the towers is much thicker than that at the upper levels. According to Eric Hufschmidt in Painful Questionsthe amount of explosives needed to severe the core beams would increase as the tower collapsed due to the degree of thickness of the beams increasing from top to bottom. Hufschmidt believes this explains the gradual seismic increase in the first four seconds of collapse.

[Sweet Pea]

81. And this would be.....

the same Eric Hufschmidt who says the Apollo moon landings were faked because we didn't send any smart astronauts and because we didn't get any pictures from the surface with the earth in the picture.

Nothing like a body of impeachable knowledge to bolster your credentials with.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/RebuttalsToScienceChallenge.html

[yella_dawg]

15. Jet fuel and steel.

I really get pissed about this every time it comes up. Please excuse the rant.

Jet fuel is no mysterious fluid with amazing properties. It is very pure kerosene. Yep, it's just fancy diesel fuel. Next time you are out on the freeway, roll down your window and listen to an accelerating diesel truck. You'll hear a high-pitched whine above the engine noise. That's the turbocharger. The hot section of the turbo is cast steel. It is cast from a steel alloy that is stable at high temperatures. Much like the steel used in the internal structures of buildings. The engineers who build skyscrapers realize that buildings burn, so they specify high temperature steel. The engineer who designed the twin towers did so.

A diesel engine is designed to extract the maximum energy (heat) from its fuel. Market forces insure this. Any engine that can squeeze a bit more power (heat) from its fuel becomes the must-have for truckers for whom fuel cost is their biggest overhead expense. On the other hand, buildings do not burn diesel fuel well at all. Video of the twin towers fire verifies this. The dense black smoke billowing from the towers was a clear indicator of inefficient (low temperature) combustion.

Yet the steel housing of a turbocharger operates at maximum temperature for the fuel burn for years without failure. The exhaust from the turbo is an 18 to 24 inch stainless steel (heat resistant) tube that connects to ordinary (cheap) mild steel tubing that directs the hot gasses away from the truck. Even the cheap steel, located two feet or less from the hottest fire possible from jet fuel, lasts for years with no physical deformation.

Jet fuel does not damage steel, even when you extract the maximum amount of heat from the combustion using the best modern technology. If the towers failed due to heat from the burning fuel, the diesel engine industry needs to be all over this like stink on shit so that road trucks can get 24 miles to the gallon.

[Jose Diablo]

17. Thermite inside columns

Putting tinfoil hat firmly in place.

I doubt it would be that hard to pour about 1-2 cubic yards of powdered thermite inside each of the 47 main columns. Could have been done from practically any floor and the thermite would settle to the base of each column.

Place magnesium flares inside the holes drilled to pour the thermite, conceal the flare and ignition circuit disguised as say false water sprinkler control cabinets, and there you have it. Buildings primed and ready to drop.

Take out the main center supports, the buildings can go only one way when the horizontal beams separate from the vertical main columns, and that is straight down. Support from the outer shell is by and large still there.

Thermite doesn't really explode either, just burns very hot. A lot of sputtering, but little super velocity gas escaping.

You know, I am remembering movies of how the vertical columns seemed to turn to dust as the buildings came down. Takes a lot of heat to vaporize steel. Maybe the heat escaping to the top of the columns could do this.

Getting reading for loonie CT protests. It's a theory.

[JHB]

23. Oh no, not again.

If the spikes were due to underground explosions undermining the foundations, why did the towers collapse from the top down, not from the base?

[Chelsea Patriot]

36. On 9/11 I was walking my pug blocks from the WTC.

I felt tremors in the ground.

The buildings collapsed and a huge mushroom cloud arose.

My immediate thought was "My God! They're bombing us now!"

Then Pug and I started to run.

[DireStrike]

68. I was in school 4-5 blocks from the WTC

The building shook(I was on the 5th floor), and the lights flickered, some time after the planes had hit.

Of course I'm not a seismograph, so I couldn't tell if it shook like a collapsing building is supposed to.

[Dancing_Dave]

120. You aren't the only witness with that experience!

Many New Yorkers noticed the tremors followed by the explosion. Then the official propaganda story came down and buried the truth in peoples experience.

But you were right. And people are very sick now because of the kind of explosives that were used in the demolition...especially the super hot explosives in those sub-basements.

[demodewd]

121. mini-nukes?

According to one Finnish military expert,there's a high probability that those bombs at the base of the towers were mini-nukes.


http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/soldier4.htm

[Vinnie From Indy]

39. "literally molten steel"

"Figurative" molten steel is not nearly as damaging or spectacular. Steel is either molten or it is not.

[Liberal Veteran]

41. At what temperature does tinfoil become molten?

Come on guys. We watched the video of these events unfold with a thousand video cameras aimed at them.

[clem_c_rock]

44. And your point is??

[ucmike]

48. who would've done this????

i've read the conspiracy theories--prewired explosives, i've read of molten steel, and such, but these theories exclude one element.

WHO WOULD HAVE DONE THIS AND WHEN???

a facility the size of WTC had hundreds of mechanics, engineers, security, working at any given time. the buildings are constantly monitored for airflow, temperature, dust, electrical issues, water issues. to get access to columns and beams would require coordination with contractors and building management. I find it hard to believe that a super secret demolition project was carried out with no one noticing. who would have done this work? al quada? the owners? would a building engineer stand by and watch? would all the employees stand by and watch? you would need escorts, elevators, shutdowns of systems, union labor (no one worked on wtc without a union-the union guys would see to that)

the demolition of this structure would have taken a very coordinated engineering effort that could not have occurred in secret. you couldn't pull a fiber optic cable in that building without getting 15 people involved, but in the middle of the night someone snuck in unnoticed and set demo charges, or filled colums with explosive slurry?

i work in manhattan on construction projects. no one does anything in secret, with out approval and without people getting involved.

as for the 'molten metal' it could have been molten anything. aluminum, copper, tin foil, whatever. a sheen of metallic oil on the top of the mess of water and whatever else was in there could also have made people think it was metal. if there was a giant pool of molten steel there where did it go? eventually it cooled, right? what happened to the giant blob of cooled metal? i worked on ground zero while it was still smoking, i worked around it ever since, i never saw anything like what has been described and haven't heard anyone who worked there say anything about it either.

and no one in new york can keep a secret, especially about something as involved as a plot to drop the WTC on a tuesday morning.

[clem_c_rock]

58. It helps when Jeb's highly involved in WTC security

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html

<snippit>

Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, Jan 19, 2003 -- A company that provided security at New York City's World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., and to United Airlines between 1995 and 2001, was backed by a private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to a brother of President Bush and the Bush family, according to records obtained by the American Reporter.

Two planes hijacked on Sept. 11, 2001 were United Airlines planes, and another took off from Dulles International Airport; two, of course, slammed into the World Trade Center. But the Bush Administration has never disclosed the ties of a presidential brother and the Bush family with the firm that intersected the weapons and targets on a day of national tragedy.

Marvin P. Bush, a younger brother of George W. Bush, was a principal in the company from 1993 to 2000, when most of the work on the big projects was done. But White House responses to 9/11 have not publicly disclosed the company's part in providing security to any of the named facilities, and many of the public records revealing the relationships are not public.

Nonetheless, public records reveal that the firm, formerly named Securacom, listed Bush on its board of directors and as a significant shareholder. The firm, now named Stratesec, Inc., is located in Sterling, Va., a suburb of Washington, D.C., and emphasizes federal clients. Bush is no longer on the board.

</snippit>

Just seems a bit too coincidental to me.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[clem_c_rock]

61. great response

[frogfromthenorth2]

62. I know! Thanks... !

[clem_c_rock]

71. So it's not possible there's any connection

I suppose you believe there's also no connection between Jeb and the 2000 election. I guess w/ that we have to believe that the Iraq war was based on an "intelligence failure" and not flat out lies. While we're at it, I got a magic bullet theory to also sell you.

If this is such BS I would like to see someone try to tell me what happened to building 7?

So a team of demolition experts was able set the explosives to bring the building down in less than 24 hours? Funny, everything I've heard is that it takes about a month to plant demolition explosives in a fair sized building.

[Carl Brennan]

83. Time to shut your *(^^ing mouth buddy.

and I mean now!

[Christophera]

123. Security Breach!

The potential here to obtain phone schematics for detonation systems and delay paths cannot be ignored when firefighters describe floors blowing in rapid sequence descending to the ground.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1215336

Then there is the powerdown.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1212053

where the phone circuits were utilized to detonate explosives built into the towers, sealed in concrete.

[sweetheart]

64. the extent of the 1993 damage was well concealed

From rumors amongst engeneers working on the 1993 fix to the WTC towers
it seems that that attack almost brought down the tower... very close...
and that it was covered up, and made to seem less, by a fairly effective
mechanism. That said, i heard the rumors, much like you say that
people talk... but how many would it really have to take to set the
ground.

It does seem the towers went down from the top first, and that the event
was unplanned. There is no corroboration of this molten steel stuff
and i find it all a bit fanciful. That said, i would wager WTC7 was
intentionally demolished 24 hours later to not hamper rescue efforts.

There is a huge ground between MIHOP and LIHOP. One implies negligence
and incompetence, and the other malfeseance. Both are not beyond bush
and his criminal junta, but they have shown much more of the former
than the latter. They are the incompetent, negligent party, the lot
of them, and its easy to see how they deliberately allowed their buddies
in the afganistan conflict to attack a pearl harbour like event to
propel themselves in to their wet dream. As for setting explosives,
it is too risky and likely, they would have been able to pursue their
war had the towers not collapsed, as the event was dramatic enough
with or without the collapse.... and honestly, i think they did not
expect it to get that far.

Notice, the only time they acted was to shoot down the plane that
was going to hit "them".

[seemslikeadream]

66. The CEO of SPC

Dr. Dov Zakheim has been nominated to serve as Under Secretary of Defense and Comptroller. He is presently the CEO of SPC International, and in the past he has served as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Planning and Resources as well as in a variety of Defense Department positions under former President Reagan. He was a member of the Task Force on Defense Reform under then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen and in February of 2000 he was appointed to the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Impact of DoD Acquisition Policies on the Health of the Defense Industry. He has received the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal; the Bronze Palm to the DoD Distinguished Public Service Medal and the CBO Director's Award for Outstanding Service. A New York native, Dr. Zakheim is a graduate of Columbia University and has also studied at the London School of Economics. He received his doctorate degree from St. Anthony's College at Oxford University.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20010212-2.html

It was an SPC subsidiary, TRIDATA CORPORATION, that oversaw the investigation after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.

[s-cubed]

49. Questions about seismic record:

1. what is the timing of the sharp spike relative to the impacts? A record from a seismometer is pretty useless if you don't have a very accurate time signature as well. Can the time line be correlated with the planes hitting or not? Has anyone checked if there were other seismographs that registered the signal? I think you learn more if you can compare 2 or more.

2. Different kinds of events make very different signatures on a seismograph: How do the signature compare to that when a building is demolished intentionally using explosives? How does it compare to a building collapsing, or to an explosion (not for demolition)? I would think that any decent seismographer could tell an explosion from an earthquake, for example. Could be wrong, but not my area.

3. If you had molten steel 30 days after the towers collapse, and you have a rough idea of how much steel there is, then you should be able to calculate - roughly - how much energy it would take to do that. Has anyone done that? Once you have an idea of how much energy you need, then you can start excluding certain possibilities.

[Vinnie From Indy]

82. I would imagine that two of the largest buildings on the planet falling

to the ground in ten seconds would produce a 'spike" on seismographs in the area. I , for one, have no doubt that the planes that slammed into the structures caused their collapse. I still have a few small doubts about whether the operation could have been stopped and wasn't. I have no doubt that the event has allowed evil men to subvert our Democracy.

[Old and In the Way]

91. See post 87 with the seismic graph included.

nt

[Minstrel Boy]

69. Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories: "this story just does not add up"

This letter is non-copyright, so I'm reproducing it in full.

And by the way, Ryan was fired the day after his letter became public.

The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Kevin Ryan, Underwriters Laboratories
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But 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). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

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.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php


9/11 whistleblower, Kevin Ryan (Underwriters Laboratories) FIRED

According to Nic Levis, east coast director of 911truth.org, "David Ray Griffin has received confirmation that Kevin Ryan, site manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories (Underwriters Laboratories), was fired today by the parent company, Underwriters Laboratories, apparently for writing a letter questioning certain common theories of the Twin Towers collapses to the leader of the U.S. government NIST team researching the World Trade Center events..."

911truth.org, who followed up on a story by Emanuel Sfernos/Bill Douglas (911Visibility.org), is "working to get statements from the parties involved and in developing this story and a possible response..."
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0411/S00239.htm

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old and In the Way]

92. I wonder if that explosion is that blip that occurs on the seimic chart

(see post 87); that small spike a couple of minutes after the 2nd plane crash is noted?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. More insanity from the American Free Press

Why 9/11 alternatists feel the need to quote that antisemitic bag of militiaheaded nutjobs is beyond my power to understand...

[LARED]

96. Hey, it simple

the logic works like this

Just because Bollynn is a antisemitic POS, professional revisionist nutjob doesn't mean he revising 9/11.

[Carl Brennan]

111. You raise a good point. I searched the American Free Press

site a little more and one article written by Willis Carto--renowned fascist-- was put up there without any indication of who he is. This could be just ignorance on the part of the editors, but they do have and anti-Israeli slant that seems more anti-Semetic.

Weird

[LARED]

112. Willis Carto is AFP.

http://www.revisionists.com/revisionists/carto.html

In 1955 Carto founded Liberty Lobby, a "populist" organization that for years published a nationally-circulated tabloid weekly, The Spotlight. Following its collapse in 2001, Carto and former Liberty Lobby employees launched American Free Press (AFP), a weekly tabloid similar to The Spotlight in style, tone and content. He has since played an important role in running AFP.

Carto also supervises The Barnes Review, a revisionist history journal he founded in 1994 that targets a middle-brow readership.

The Barnes Review and AFP have jointly sponsored several conferences.

[Carl Brennan]

113. Carto is a sick puppy

He said something like: "Hitler's defeat was the defeat of Europe".

[Carl Brennan]

117. So did you see what I just said?

If you did get nice and say thanks or something.

[Dancing_Dave]

127. Evidence grows of tactical nukes in WTC sub-basements

Three important leads have recently come together to put us close to
identifying tactical nuclear weapons used in the demolition of the Twin
Towers.


One is that I have recently re-discovered a rigorous physical and
chemical analysis of WTC debris done in the fall of 2001. One thing they
did was used radioactive energy measurement techniques based on standard
Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Mechanics is our Friend!) to detect trace
amounts of Uranium 235, Actinium, and Thorium. A bunch of academics did
a study a study of settled smoke and dust collected just east of the WTC
on 9/16/2001 and 9/17/2001
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

"Abstract

The explosion and collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) was a
catastrophic event that produced an aerosol plume impacting many
workers,
residents, and commuters during the first few days after 11 September
2001.
Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at

weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001;

these samples are representative of the generated material that settled
immediately after the explosion and fire and the concurrent collapse of
the
two structures. We analyzed each sample, not differentiated by particle
size, for inorganic and organic composition. In the inorganic analyses,
we
identified metals, *radionuclides*, ionic species, asbestos, and
inorganic
species. In the organic analyses, we identified polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated
dibenzodioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, pesticides, phthalate
esters,
brominated diphenyl ethers, and other hydrocarbons. Each sample had a
basic
pH. Asbestos levels ranged from 0.8% to 3.0% of the mass, the PAHs were
>
0.1% of the mass, and lead ranged from 101 to 625 µg/g. The content and
distribution of material was indicative of a complex mixture of building

debris and combustion products in the resulting plume...

Radionuclides. We analyzed the gamma spectrum of the samples using an
EG&G/Ortec high-purity Ge detector (50% relative efficiency) gamma
counter
(EG&G/Ortec Instruments, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN). We analyzed approximately
50
peaks based on statistical significance (counting/lack of
interference’s).
These included thorium, uranium, actinium series, and primordial
radionuclides."

Funny that no one thought to research this further...well, maybe they
just
couldn't get Federal funding for any further research. Obviously, they
didn't tell the EPA what the EPA wanted to hear. Actinium is extremely
rare in nature, extremely radioactive and toxic, and sometimes created
in nuclear reactors for use in thermoelectric systems that help to power
communication satellites in orbit around the Earth. Actinium’s decay
process produces plenty of neutrons. It is a silvery colored metal which
emits an erie blue radiation related light. The human body has no
effective defense mechanism for expelling this extremely rare
radioactive toxin. It lodges in the skeleton and exo-skeleton (teeth,
etc.) It also binds to fluoride. Thus, it can kill human teeth.

This brings into perspective some of the testimony ground zero worker
Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia recently gave to Alex Jones:

" AJ: We’re talking to Sgt. Matthew Tartaglia. I’m Alex Jones, your
host. We’re going to your calls: David and Mark and Chris and Richard
and Harvey and everybody else here in just a few minutes. Continuing
with the health problems. Again, it is admitted that the rescue workers
and New Yorkers, period, but especially rescue workers, breathed all
this asbestos and other chemicals. And there were treatments for all of
this but Bush, personally, had the Congress shut down the money: 90 plus
million because that would have been an admission of exposure. And he’s
denied you guys that. What have the health problems been like for
yourself and your friends and others that were there?

MT: Most everybody has chronic sinusitis. They have ringing in the ears.
Some people’s teeth and gums are bothering them. In the last year, I’ve
lost seven teeth. They have just broken while I was eating. I have three
or four more teeth that are just dying. And my dentist says, “I’ve never
seen anything like this in someone who’s healthy. There is something
wrong with you but I cannot find what it is. And I can’t stop it
either.”
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=293484771&t=1

The radioactive Actinium found in the WTC explosive debris could help
explain the Dental problems.

A Finnish military expert has made some strong arguments for a tactical
fusion weapon being used in the destruction of the WTC:
http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/military.htm

There are certain problems with his hypothesis. An unshielded fusion
weapon typically functions as a Neutron Bomb. We do not see the rather
well known effects of a Neutron bomb in the quite well studied
environmental and a public health impact of the WTC disaster. So a
cogent hypothesis, is that the tactical fusion weapon was coated with
something which absorbed neutrons, converted some of the energy from
this radiation into blast and penetration power, and ultimately left
it's mark in the Uranium-Actinium-Thorium decay series detected in WTC
debris immediately after 9/11.

This hypothesis may not be exactly correct. I am currently seeking
advice from experts in the fields of nuclear physics, quantum mechanics
and physical chemistry to help sort through all the relevant evidence.
The explosive thermodynamics also needs to be addressed in greater
detail. But I think we are on the verge of explosive disclosure of the
physical processes actually involved in the destruction of the WTC.

This
will also tell us a lot about who could have actually done it.

[Carolab]

128. Meet the Loizeaux family: Also involved in Oklahoma City bombing.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/rosebud/meet_the_loizeaux_family.htm

And seismic activity was ALSO reported THERE.

Read the connections of this family who handed the clean up at WTC and Murrah building.

[graphixtech]

131. New photos and articles from Oklahoma City bombing event- A Day of Truth

http://okc.digitalstyledesigns.com/SpeakersForum/index.html


You may be interested in reading this new article, from 911Truth.org
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050430013751401

Oklahoma Trip Report
by Richard Asmus
April 28, 2005

Delegates from 911Truth attended the Oklahoma City Bombing Investigation Committee's (OKBIC) convention commemorating the 10th anniversary of the April 19, 1995 bombing. They found startling similarities between the tragedies of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building and the World Trade Center. Both attacks have many common signs of federal government involvement and cover-ups.

The most compelling problem at the Oklahoma City site was that first viewers on the scene, who were not associated with the federal government, found several un-detonated explosives. To their astonishment and grief, Federal agents halted rescue efforts to remove large volumes of evidence. Later, explosive experts discovered that it was impossible for the explosion of the rented van in the front of the building to have caused such severe damage. Further investigation conclusively revealed that explosive charges had been detonated inside the building.
(much more)

[Lithos]

137. Locking

For some reason it the fact this is based on an AFP article did not register to me back in January. AFP sourced material is not allowed for use on DU as this site is a known revisionist/hate site with little to no credibility.

Lithos
9-11 Moderator
Democratic Underground