Rosie O'Donnell, fire does melt steel

Hmm.. A large amount of burning airline fuel that came cascading down elevator shafts in a building not far away and connected by tunnels.

Hmm.. a rather large building building not far away falling down? The building collapses were hardly without shock waves. WTC7 wasn't miles away from the epicenter of that shock wave.

parados, aha. "A large amount of burning airline fuel that came cascading down elevator shafts in a building not far away and connected by tunnels." That caused gas exp;osions at WTC 7? Not likely or plausible. "a rather large building building not far away falling down? The building collapses were hardly without shock waves. WTC7 wasn't miles away from the epicenter of that shock wave." But the explosions at WTC7 happened hours before the collapse of any building. They were huge explosions too according to eyewitnesses. One eyewitness says when he got to the lobby, ""It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out." Hours before any collapse at any WTC building. Hard to explain obviously judging from your posts.

Hours before either tower collapsed?




I don't know when you think this supposedly happened in WTC7 but I see no evidence of any explosion in WTC7 hours before the collapse of the towers.

Perhaps if you have some you could provide it. The only story is by someone that was at a command center in WTC7 about 10:00am. Gee, that seems to coincide with the 10:05 collapse.



NIST preliminary report has some pictures of rather heavy exterior damage to WTC7 prior to its collapse as a result of the towers collapsing.

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixl.pdf

"The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.
Avery and Burmas, who played the two short clips of the interview prior to further analysis and more clips to be played on their own GCN radio show later tonight at 7pm CST, further described how the individual had witnessed dead bodies in the lobby of 7 and was told by the police not to look at them.

This is vital information be cause it is in direct conflict with the official claim that no one was killed inside building 7. The 9/11 Commission report did not even mention building, yet here we have a key witness who told them he saw dead people inside the building after explosions had gutted the lower level."

The first tower collapsed about 8 hours before WTC7 came down. You claimed the lobby of WTC7 was in shambles hours before the first tower came down.

You are attempting to make out that there is this huge time problem. The witness saw carnage in WTC7 about 10am. The first tower collapsed about 10am. Now you are saying the witness was able to determine that this happened HOURS before 10am. The NTIS preliminary report shows pictures of structural damage to WTC7 from debris from the Tower collapses.

I see a traumatized person that doesn't know the difference between a couple of minutes before 10 and a couple of minutes after 10. Then this same witness without looking at people, or examining them, can tell they are dead. This witness was in a building, how did he KNOW when the tower collapsed? If he was crawling out a hole in the lobby of WTC7 shortly after 9:59 why was he not hurt by falling debris within 7 minutes when the first tower came down in about 11 seconds?

parados, the explosions in WTC happened before the collapse of any buildings at WTC which makes claims of damage from collapsed buildings moot. Talk of natural gas explosions caused by the collapse are done in by the time line. I see a wiilingness to question nothing on your part and simple acceptence of government theories that are disproven by science. Bring the scientists together is my idea. Let them challenge one another in public. That aint unreasonable yet you seem to not be open to that. If I mis-stated facts from my article that's my failure but the article is right to the point, ""The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm." Unlike you or the government I'm willing to pit scientist against scientist in public where America can hear both sides. I question why anyone would be afraid of such a debate.

Scientists? You call the people you keep parroting scientists?

What a bunch of malarky.

The stuff you have posted here is NOT science. It isn't even close to science. It is a bunch of publicity seekers feeding off conspiracy nuts.

1. They claimed the steel needed to melt for the tower to collapse. (Ignores simple physics.)
2. They claimed ALL the steel on the floor had to melt and provided math to show the building couldn't have collapsed. (It ignores simple physics.)
3. They claimed the best fire to melt steel is open air.
4. They claimed there was no damage to WTC7 from the tower collapse (Picture evidence shows that to be false.)
5. They claimed that thermite is required to melt steel. (NIST states it would have taken tons of thermite to just weaken the steel let alone melt it as stated by the nuts.)

parados, you can Swift Boat scientists you disagree with and I can Swift Boat the government's scientists. That accomplishes nothing. Over 70 million Americans in one Zogby poll say we should have new investigations. They did not come to that conclusion lightly. New and open investigations are inevitable imo. If we have to wait we will wait but the issue will not fade away. Revelations will work towards and not away from growing numbers calling for new investigations. WTC 7 is key and eyewitness accounts also. It's most disturbing that the 911 Commission chose to ignore eyewitnesses but those people will be heard possibly in Congressional hearings before all is said and done.

Yeah and over 62 million people voted for Bush in 2004. Because millions of Americans are idiots doesn't mean we should do something. Nor does it mean they considered any real evidence before they came to their decision.

First of all, the NIST investigation isn't even complete so it is kind of silly to be demanding new investigations of WTC7.

The 911 commission ignored witnesses? I thought this was about the science. It seems it isn't since witnesses have little to do with the science. This is about your silly conspiracy and you will keep throwing junk out there just like the creationists do with evolution. When your "science" is brought into question you accuse me of "swift boating" the scientists. Excuse me but physics is a science not a scientist. Strength of materials is about science, not a scientist. If someone can't even get basic science right, it is hardly "swift boating" to point out the gaping errors in their claims.

So, what is your claim bf? Or is your only argument that you don't have the answers and want to examine it? Well the evidence is THERE if you would look at it all. Pictures of the damage to the buildings. Video of the collapse that clearly show bulging walls. Explanations for the puffs of dust caused by the collapse. Maybe you should do some research into controlled demolitions. There is lots of work for you to do but you aren't doing any of it. You are just blowing air without any facts. You are listening to people that aren't using any science or so badly using it that a simple HS science student should be able to spot the errors.

parados, here is what FEMA says about the government's 911 theory right from the government's report, "FEMA admit the standard hypothesis is extremely weak: "Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence." Despite that you're certain. That leads me to question your motives.

FEMA didn't do a comprehensive scientific evaluation.

NIST has stated that FEMA didn't have all the information NIST has. Some of the primary information being photos showing extensive physical damage to the building from the collapse of the nearby towers.

Damage to WTC 7 from the collapsed buildings does not explain the explosions in WTC 7 before the collapse and before a second plane struck. Quite extensive damage too judging from eyewitnesses. Ignoring eyewitness testimony as the 911 Commission did reeks of cover-up.

Come on people...jet fuel fire would not bring down these towers and an uncontrolled burn would not generate enough heat to melt steel. The official report claims the heat weakened the joists which caused the failure of one floor onto another which caused the "pancake" effect all the way down. What a bunch of bollocks!

What about the independantly supported and constructed building core? there would be absolutely no reason for the core to collapse - the floors were bolted and welded all around it. It especially could never come down at the same rate as the floors.

Look at the video people, there are explosives used - the force is so great it sends a plume of ash and dust straight upwards, steel giders are thrown 60 feet embedding into adjacent buildings. You can clearly see in the video with AAron Brown a multi-story spire of the building steel structure disingrate before your eyes.

How was there molten steel under WTC 1, 2 and 7? They all were brought down with explosives.

How about the Pentegon crash? no passenger plane hit that building. No passenger plane with aluminum skin could have penetrated not 1, not 2 but 3 three foot thick steel re-inforced walls. Where were the 9 foot high jet engines, where was their impact point?

Shanksville - Flight 93 never went down here, no forensic evidence of human remains, no wreckage, no engines.

It's all about creating another war on something...this time 9/11 caused the war on terrorism. The CIA started the war on drugs by importing it by the ton from south america. It has now imprisoned more poor black people as any war.

BTW Rosie O'Donnell was a brave women for standing up against the system - wether or not you believe in what she was saying. It is as offensive to me to hear Elizabeth Hasselbach preach on with her neo-conservative, war-mongering points of view...but no-one wants her off the show. EH represents the system - RO challenges it - I am sorry to see her leave and more sorry that the system has silenced yet another out-spoken individual.

What video? Oh, you must mean this one.

Oh, wait, maybe that's not the right one. It doesn't support your bullshit theory.

By the way, welcome to the site. Enjoy.

"How was there molten steel under WTC 1, 2 and 7?" That's a good question. And it was molten for weeks after 911.

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Thermite Use as an Explanation
The "deep mystery" of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intragranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.
link

What explosions? The damage was from the towers collapsing.

The timeline doesn't show anything else other than some people confused by the tower collapse thinking it sounded and looked like an explosion. The extensive video of the site doesn't show this explosion. (Many tv news programs were sending out live feeds.) The seismograph records from NJ don't show this explosion. (It's available online.) The audio recordings don't reveal this explosion. (There were multiple open mics in the area.) So somehow this explosion was invisible, soundless and didn't create any shock that could be felt outside of the lobby where it occurred. Believe me an explosion that would have destroyed the lobby of a building would have been felt and heard. There is no evidence other than a confused eye witness to make this claim.

parados, "What explosions? The damage was from the towers collapsing." Well there you go. Like the 911 Commission you choose to ignore testimony from eyewitnesses who not only witnessed explosions but were injured in them. One wounded worker was badly injured and dragged to safety by another worker. Their testimony has been posted here on this thread. But ignored. Explosions were heard well before the second plane hit and well before the collapse of any building. They were not soundless to the eyewitnesses but then neither you or the 911 Commission need no stinkin eyewitnesses.