Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in news:dv13f4$g3v$1
:


"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
excerpt from Dr Jones paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping
from
the
South WTC Tower shortly before its collapse:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...54740145858863
&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. The yellow color implies a molten-metal
temperature of approximately 1000 oC,

Problem is structural steel has a melting point of around 1400 deg C
so whatever it was it was NOT molten steel.

Keith





It could have cooled a bit by that time


We call that stuff SOLID steel

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links too):



Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may wish
to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-
11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of
Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous,
as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over –
this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this
strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding
scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this
phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
added.)



Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to
be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team
admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific procedure as to
ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints
on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See
Mooney, 2005.)



So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open
for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government.



-----------------------



Keith, each Tower had 47 massive steel beams. Please take a few minutes and
search Jones' paper for the term "core" and read the information (as it
pertains to the 47 massive steel columns):
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Also look through this paper by a Mechanical Engineering Professor:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/me...ssor-from.html


Finally, how does one explain the near free fall collapse of WTC 7, which
was NOT hit by an airplane?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...demolition.mpg



The following are ten quotes from the WTC Task Force Interviews "Oral
Histories" as published in the New York Times.

See here for many more quotes, and links to the Times website
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820



FDNY CAPTAIN:
"Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."



FDNY BATTALION CHIEF:
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"



FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came
down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
what I thought I saw"



FDNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:
"We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people
thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember
seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse
like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they
show you those implosions on TV."



FDNY FIRE MARSHAL:
"I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours
afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some
device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower
had shot out far over our heads"



FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that
the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the
building."

"As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"



FDNY CHIEF:
"You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like
a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one
and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole
top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was
falling off."



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed
like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction,
then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a
pancake."

Q. "where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started
collapsing?"

A. "It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the
impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on
television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a
rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason
why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far
distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the
smoke was up above it."



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on
television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all
the way around like a belt, all these explosions"



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of
Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial
Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about
midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage
because the perception was that the building looked like it had been
taken out with charges"

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links
too):



I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith

"Keith W" wrote in
:


"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in
buckling with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
video links too):



I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith







I thought your name was Mike???

"Wake Up!" wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@
130.81.64.196:

"Keith W" wrote in
:


"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in
buckling with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
video links too):



I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith







I thought your name was Mike???



Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

Wake Up! wrote:
"Keith W" wrote in
:


"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...

"Keith W" wrote in
:


As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in
buckling with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
video links too):



I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith



I thought your name was Mike???

Then why do you say, "Keith, you're a qualified engineer" and ask for
his opinion? Man, the 60's were good to you. You are in a discussion
with Keith and surprised when he signs his name "Keith" again.

Wake Up! wrote:

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
you post yourself.

In article ,
"Wake Up!" wrote:

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never.

Name one who agrees with your little claim, there.

You see, the problem with that is that steel frame buildings generally
aren't *allowed* to catch on fire and keep burning without some fire
suppression going on. The WTC (1, 2 and 7) are nearly unique cases, in
which two of them had their fireproofing stripped off through plane
impacts and the other had a big tank of diesel fuel sitting in the
middle of it, and had some damage from the tremors of the first two
collapsing.

That "near free fall speed" is what pretty much any tall building falls
at once it starts to go.

mrtravel wrote in news:ZBvRf.521$4L1.486
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

Wake Up! wrote:

Whatever, though, for you to simply assume that WTC 7, a steel framed
building, totally collapsed near free fall speed from fire, you are
definitely not qualified. A qualified engineer would know that steel
framed buildings do not completely collapse from fire. Never. Sorry.

You claim it was thermite.
There is also ample evidence on collapses of steel structures.
But, don't let the facts bother you.
You seem to be ignoring any information provided to you, even the info
you post yourself.




No 1: It was thermite or some other kind of cutter-explosives. It's the
ones who believe the government's nonsense that say it was fire.

No 2: your comment about "ample evidence on collapses of steel
structures" has absolutely zero relevance on what I'm talking about.



Steel Framed Skyscrapers Do NOT Completely Collapse From Fire Period!

What is so hard for people to understand about that statement?

It never happened before! NEVER!!! IT IS A FACT!!!


According to you pilots it could happen on 9/11 THREE times? My God!


WTC 7 was ***NOT*** hit by an airplane! Is that understood?

WTC 7 collapsed near symetrically, near free fall speed!

WTC 7 had smoke puffs going up the wall just as it started to collapse!

The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled! The
leaseholder bought a 99 yr lease on the entire WTC complex just six
weeks before 9/11! He wasn't in his North Tower office on 9/11 due to a
"doctors appointment"! His lawyers successfully sued to get TWICE the
payout claiming it was two separate attacks! The insurance company's
structural engineer said (on camera) that the way the vertical columns in
the Towers severed simultaneously was just like controlled demolitions!
The WTC 7 fire alarm was put into test mode the morning of 9/11!


Each Twin Tower was designed withstand the impact on a FULLY LOADED 707!
The 767s on 9/11 were UNDERBOOKED! An executive in the WTC Construction
Management Company said (on camera) in his opinion the Towers could
withstand MULTIPLE 707 crashes! He said a plane crashing into the Towers
is the same as a pencil puncturing a window screen -- it does NOTHING!



It is time to Wake UP! and face the TRUTH

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:



Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional
opinion on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the
video links too):



I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith







I thought your name was Mike???


Well your thought processes are mysterious so I'm not
exactly surprised.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----