I appreciate those who are, at the very least, open to what I have to say.

Take a close look at the manner in which WTC 7 collapses straight down imploding (with squibs, and a classic crimp, almost at the rate of free fall) just like any other prefect demolition, vertically onto its own footprint.

The claim that the collapse was the result of a fire or diesel (a low temperature fuel) requires the fire be hot enough to melt huge steel columns equally distributed throughout the entire building, providing equal heat for an equal amount of time, so that all the load bearings members would fail at the exact same moment.

The fires were visibly minimal at the time of collapse.

I agree with the hypothesis of Dr. Jones, and I am happy that his paper has just been accepted to be peer reviewed.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

This guy is not an expert and BYU is not a hot spot for physics. Also an academic affiliation means...NOTHING.

-Rudey

Yep, yep and yep.

A student is NOT an expert. If they were, then they wouldn't be a student.

Not always true, at least in my opinion. Not all students are alike. Some come to college with a fair amount of experience and may be more expert than their instructors in certain areas.

In this circumstances, I wouldn't qualify him as an expert. His paper hasn't even gone through peer-review yet, and there's no other information that shows us he's any sort of expert.

I'm confused by what the OP means when he says "I appreciate those who are, at the very least, open to what I have to say." Unless the OP is the author that we're discussing, the OP isn't saying anything, just regurgitating what someone else said.

ETA: I guess I just think of the term "expert" in the legal sense, which may be different from what Joe Blow thinks is an expert.

You could be absolutely right.

I really don't know if he is or not. He probably knows a lot more about structural matters than I do, but I haven't even taken the time to read the link yet.

I just don't write off a theory on a subject in which I have some questions myself. So, one of these days, I'll check out the link and then make some kind of decision.

Of course, even "experts," no matter how it's defined can be wrong. This guy may be way off base.

And, in some cases (certainly not all), letters like MA and PhD mean that you've learned a lot from books, but may never have done a single practical thing in the field. I'm not sure that makes an expert either.

Amazing, This Was Not Oil or Gas Fired!

It was Jet Fuel which runs at a Much Higher Flame and Burn!:rolleyes:

When a Fuel Such as This does its deed, the structure will debiliatate and degenereate.

It does not take a Friggen Rocket Scientest to figure this out!

The Towers Went Down and Killed many people and destructed other buildings in its path!

It did Not dropped straight down or there would not be Death and Destruction along with other Buildings except for those in Close Proximity!:rolleyes:

Jet fuel is much like diesel fuel and is classified as a low temperature burning fuel.

The Buildings did fall straight down, bearing a classic crimp just before implosion, with squibs visible as implosion occured, falling vertically onto its own footprint, almost at the rate of free fall, just like any well planned controlled demolition.

Fires were visibly minimal at the time of collapse.


http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

The following letter was sent 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 componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance. A link to the article containing the letter provided below letter.



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...overstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanic...sisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCS...101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories


link to article containing letter:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/new...11-11-ryan.php

I've only been posting for a short number of years, but surely this is the longest running discussion of jet fuel/melting steel/Utah to date.

Is Dr. Jones or Frank a Deke?

And don't call me Shirely any more.

I would be curious about who the peer reviewers are, and what their opinions are.

BULLSHIT!!!

You and your favorite physicist were not there.

Nothing was clearly visible due to the enormous amount of debris after the Twin Towers collapsed, so there is no way that any rational conclusion can be drawn from the visibility of the fires.

Russ,

Not true:

Many people saw building 7 fall live as it colapsed to the ground. Millions of others have seen the same thing on replays of that same footage.

Pick your favorite angle in the link below:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

Even FEMA admits that the fires were small in scale.


Dr. Jones' paper:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Those videos back me up. They were shot from too far of a distance to provide any detail. Also, I saw the Twin Towers before they fell. The fires were confined to an area much smaller than the area of WTC7 not visible in those videos.

Nice try.

If you cant see that building 7 in those videos and still framed pictures sustained only minor fires, you are experiencing a progressed case of cognative dissonance.

All firefighters on the ground reported mild to moderate fires.

Even FEMA admits the fires were minimal!

Please Russ... at least read this paper before posting:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html