Physicists associated with the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University, the Department of Physics at the University of Iowa, and the University of Maryland at College Park have released a paper examining the evidence for extremely high temperatures, much higher than conventional office building fires, in the World Trade Center collapses. Evidence of extremely high temperatures was found in dust samples that contain once-molten spheres of metals with high melting points, silicates, or glass-like compounds, and evidence of the vaporization of certain metals.
The office material fires described by the government's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study of the WTC collapses indicate air temperatures no higher than 1100C in highly localized areas. As for analysis of the steel from the buildings "…using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600C." The temperatures required to form the once-molten spheres found in the dust samples, collected days after the collapses, range from 1000C to 2760C. Iron melts at 1565C, unless in the presence of other compounds under controlled conditions, at which a "eutectic" of iron and sulfur can melt at 1000C. This"eutectic" was discovered by FEMA, and by fire researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and confirmed by this team of physicists and researchers.
The authors write in their Abstract:
"In an effort to better understand the conditions that led to complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC 7, we apply scanning-election-microscope (SEM) and energy dispersive x-rayspectroscopy (XEDS) methods to analyze the dust generated, with an emphasis on observed micro-spheres in the WTC dust. The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office materials in the WTC buildings."
The significance of this work is that it shows office materials ignited by jet fuel could not have been the cause of the particles found. Hydrocarbon fires burn under the most optimum conditions at 1100C, conditions that did not exist in the fires at the towers. MIT Prof. Thomas Eagar wrote in 2001, ""The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. This is not true… The temperature of the fires at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel… …The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000C – hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1500C."
"…But is it very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel andair in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio… This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 to 650C range. It isknown that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke."[1.]
Â
Corroborationof Evidence
Â
           A US Geological Survey study released in 2005, and a study of dust samples by the firm RJ Lee in 2003 both confirmed the presence of iron-rich spheres in the samples they examined. The Lee study also discovered silicates, glass-like compounds, which had a "Swiss cheese appearance as a result of boiling and evaporation." The temperature required to produce spheres of silicates is roughly 1450C. The temperature needed to vaporize, or boil, a silicate is about 2760C. The Lee study also found evidence of vaporized lead. Vaporization of lead occurs at around 1740C.
One of the more unusual finds came about through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the US Geological Service for data regarding the 2005 results the USGS had published. Not published with the original data are micrographs showing spheres of molybdenum, a metal with a melting temperature of 2623C, over one thousand degrees hotter than that necessary to melt iron. Finding spheres of molybdenum in the dust of the WTC collapses is evidence that temperatures, by some mechanism, may have reached at least 2623C.
Researchers at Worcester Polytechnic Institute also discovered evidence of extremely high temperatures completely unexplained by any of the official studies completed, or underway, to date. Prof. Jonathon Barnett found steel possessing a "Swiss cheese like appearance." Examining structural steel from WTC 7 he wrote, "A one-inch [steel] column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like 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." [2.]
          Â
Cause and Effect
Â
           So what caused these temperatures? Was it the jet fuel and office material fires that burn at much, much lower temperatures? Or were there compounds such as thermite, or thermate-variants, a common military incendiary, which burns at closer to 2500C, and is capable of melting iron and steel? But how are temperatures of the intensity to boil silicates, or melt molybdenum, temperatures in excess of 2600C, to be explained? Coupled with the observed presence of flowing pools of molten steel and iron, "running like lava," under the rubble of the three collapsed buildings, persisting for 100 days, there is a need of further investigation. These temperatures are indicative of a very high-energy event, much higher than hydrocarbon fires, or gravity-induced collapses can possibly produce. Such high-energy events are entirely consistent with the use of explosives in bringing the buildings down. ANY investigation into the collapse of these buildings, such as the current investigation into the collapse of WTC 7, must include this observable evidence. To date, the NIST-directed team investigating this collapse, six years after the event, has given no indication they intend to include this data in their inquiry.
Â
1.Eagar, T. W. and Musso, C. (2001). "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?Science, Engineering, and Speculation", Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, 53/12:8-11(2001).
Â
2."The"Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel" WPI Transformations, Spring 2002
Â
Forthe full text of the paper on which this article is based, please see:
Â
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 20
The blueprints for the buildings were kept secret until fairly recently when they were leaked, and can be found in the public domain. They show that the elevator shafts in the core of the two towers allowed private access to the columns that provided the main support structure of the buildings. From the privacy of the shafts it would be a relatively simply matter for competent people to place thermate cutting charges on the columns, or a similar compound, and once detonated assist with the destruction of the towers. Sulfidation of the steel is suggestive of this happening, as is other physical evidence reported by the USGS and Worcester Polytechnic Institute, as well as the researchers I mention above. Other compounds not mentioned in this paper is also suggestive of this. The molten metal in the basements is consistent with the use of explosives and cutting charges.
So, no, not the terrorists with strange materials in their luggage.
In the months prior to 911, tenants have described power downs, in which all security systems were off line, with short advanced warnings, unusual workers, unusual noises on unoccupied floors, unexpected and unexplained building evacuation drills, unusual dust coating shelves and office spaces.
Pre-positioned charges are plausible. The evidence of explosives is in the rubble, dust, and steel. How the explosives got there, and who had access to plant them needs a full investigation
\\\\In the months prior to 911, tenants have described power downs, in which all security systems were off line, with short advanced warnings, unusual workers, unusual noises on unoccupied floors, unexpected and unexplained building evacuation drills, unusual dust coating shelves and office spaces.////
What you've just described is the typical thing I would expect to hear from occupants in this type of situation. But first comes the question why? Who gains? And how on earth could they keep such an action truly secret? And why would they do that if they were going to hit the buildings with airliners?
I'm not saying there were not questions without answers. I would expect that. But, right now, the official line requires less suspension of disbelief to swallow than any of the conspiracy theories.
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=3&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=183&epi=0&typ=0
And I'm sorry, but the official line requires blinders to accept as true. If you can't see who has gained from what has followed, I'm not sure you will ever see.
http://tinyurl.com/2r6un3
http://nasathermalimages.com
I'll watch your video and see. However, the conspiracy takes lots of blinders to accept as well. Especially when the why, how and who are not even slightly explained, only speculated. This is a lot like the "grassy knoll" in the Kennedy thing!
Don't you have something written as opposed to videos? I find them to be difficult to analyze critically. You just have to listen and accept or reject. If you could find the information printed I'd much prefer it.
I read the information that Justin linked to and found it interesting but not at all surprising. I'd expect that after a fire of that magnitude. I've worked steel with a forge and done forge welding and you don't generate anywhere close to the temperatures of the WTC fire in a simple forge! Between the girth of the fire, the way it was started and it's eventual collapse, what I've seen on tape is exactly what I'd expect.
Thanks for the link Justin!
I went to the link and got the 911blog but I couldn't go anywhere from there and no page was linked, so no information.
I don't try to answer all the questions. I point out the observable evidence that shows as clearly as the nose on ones' face that the official conspiracy theory does not fit that observed evidence.
The official conspiracy theory says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about once-molten spheres of molybdenum... nothing, nada, zip.
The official conspiracy theory says absolutely nothing about the molten metal pools in the rubble pile. There are more than three video interviews, probably quite a few more, with firefighters and others that clearly describe molten metal flowing like lava in the rubble pile.
The official conspiracy theory gives no plausible explanation about videos of molten metal pouring from the building. The wavelength of light indicated by the color of the molten metal is a physical property that identifies pretty closely the type of metal that is flowing. It is not aluminum, or lead. They do not glow that same color at their melting temperatures. Iron does glow that color at its melting temperature. This data is not included in official reports, or analysis of what initiated collapse.
I am not "speculating" about this. It is an observable, physical phenomenon. And it has been left out of the official analysis, the official conspiracy theory.
And the points that I do speculate about, I am perfectly clear that I don't have all the answers. I do have peer reviewed scientific evidence to refer to that the official conspiracy theory ignores, has written off, or disputes with no counter argument. A lot of believers in the official conspiracy theory counter concerning the molten metal in the rubble by saying, nonsensically, there was no molten metal in the rubble, when clearly many people saw it and spoke about it.
Another physical property of iron is it will not melt under the limited heat of a hydrocarbon fire. Molybdenum melts at 2700C+. A hydrocarbon fire gets nowhere near that temp. A battalion chief made it to the 78th floor and radioed that he found two isolated pockets of fire, and needed two lines to knock it down. Not a raging inferno, two isolated pockets of fire. Seven minutes later, the building collapsed on him.
The video I am asking you to watch is 911 Mysteries. You may find it with a google search, if that link doesn't work for you.
People that analyze from the crime scene out conclude that hi tech involvement is evident. People that analyze from outside the crime scene conclude that it isn't possible to have a hi-tech destruction. (Too many people without a leak, etc.)
I say analyzing from the crime scene out may help us eventually understand everything that happened. But analyzing from outside will never produce an understaning of the crime scene.
Thanks Bob.
I apologize if I referenced conspiracy theory incorrectly! Any thing that is postulated about the WTC at this point is theory. And the fact that airplanes flew into the building is a pretty well recognized fact, wouldn't you agree? From there on it is all speculation. Some of it educated guesses by engineers and scientists, some wild guesses by people who've never been there and the usual "insider" interviews and opinions from people who were there.
I don't believe we've ever seen this magnitude of fire in a building in modern history, have we? And we can't possibly know, for certain fact, how much of anything would react in such a conflagration. The heat developed had to be tremendous! I believe we can agree on those points,
Beyond that, we are bringing in unseen and unknown persons to accomplish nefarious acts but we don't know who, why, or exactly how, do we? So, if you can agree with those things, then we have buildings standing and planes flying into them. Everything beyond that, the official story or any other, is a theoretical story. It is only a conspiracy if more than one person was involved.
Of course, the Al Quada members flying those planes was a conspiracy. Do you contend that there was a second conspiracy? Others have referenced a conspiracy from the top level of the administration. I wouldn't put it past them but I don't believe they could have pulled it off. I don't believe they had sufficient motive. And, I certainly don't believe that it could be kept secret with the number of people and agencies that might involve!
If that leaves mysteries, and it does, those will have to remain mysteries in perpetuity as no one is going to do a postmortem after seven years, I don't think, do you? Why would they? Who would do it? And how could they get the information they would need after all these years and the destruction of the wreckage?
I do want to see the video you mention but most of the time I cannot have the sound on on my computer so that is quite limiting. I will try to watch it though I'm partial to transcripts for information.
I guess what I'm trying to get across is that, at this point, the entire thing is moot.
I recognize the research and thought you and others have put into this and it is an interesting subject. But we face real challenges and problems in this country and I'm sure they are not going to reopen this event in the face of other, more pressing, issues.
Thanks Stephen!
Yep, pretty well established planes flew into the buildings. And then there are "educated" guesses, and not so educated. NIST conducted some reasonable science into the event. It completely ignored or wrote off other parts. That is not reasonable, or educated. There are opinions that are so far outside the range of observable evidence, I tend to pay them no mind. I give a good deal of attention to the verifiable, repeatable evidence that exists, on samples that are still available to this day.
Magnitude of the fire: MIT Prof Thomas Eagar said in 2002 the fires were not unusual, the dark smoke indicative of a low temperature, inefficient burn. We do have examples of major fires that have not collapsed buildings of this type of structure. I wrote an article here on Gather that talks about that. Building 6 WTC was completely engulfed in flames, windows broken out, flames on all floors, a raging inferno. It required controlled demolition to bring the steel frame down during the cleanup. The fires in the towers were not raging infernos. We know this from the people in the towers, the firefighters that witnesses the fires, the smoky evidence Eagar talked about. These were not raging infernos. These were low temperature, smoky fires. There is no evidence that says otherwise. Saying the results prove the theory while ignoring all the evidence that points to the contrary does not prove the theory. Saying the buildings collapsed, so it must have been the fires does not prove it collapsed because of the fires.
Motive: with the stroke of a pen, on the authority of many executive orders issued since 911, the president can take ANY incident, "regardless of location" according to NSPD 51, and declare a national emergency. On authority of many executive orders this gives him de facto dictatorial powers over almost everything that happens in this country. Sound alarmist? Look it up. It is a fact. According to the 911 commission report, a "shadow government" went into effect on the morning of 911 when Continuity of Government policies were enacted. Congress was not informed, according to reliable news reports and interviews with people like Denny Hastert, Trent Lott, Tom Daschle, Richard Gephardt, Robert Byrd. COG may still be in effect, Rep Defazio inquired about COG and was told to, in effect, go to h*ll. He has security clearances from being on the Homeland Sercurity committee of the House. COG plans are secret.
Given this motive, and all that could POTENTIALLY follow from it, it is encumbent on anyone that knows of this danger to our country to speak up and demand a new investigation, a release of the evidence the gov has held secret since the event, and there is a lot of it, to get at the truth and stop what is happening. Sit on your hands if you must. Not me.
Jim Hoffman reviews Kevin Ryans devastating critique of NIST's analysis and states at one point: "Ryan shows that the design engineers had contemplated jetliner crashes and the fires that would result. Lead engineer John Skilling said in 1993, five years before his death:
"our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there."
--City in the Sky
These statements are not disclosed by a number of post-9/11 documentaries that feature Leslie Robertson, (a junior partner to Skilling at the time the Towers were designed) implying that considering the effects of fires were someone else's job.
Ryan provides an illustrated tour of the Tower's construction, describing the huge core structures, and noting that steel used in the perimeter columns was super-strong steel: much of it rated to 1,000,000 PSI."
In addition, in the case of 9/11, the jets were only half full of fuel and most burned off in the initial fireballs. Furthermore, regarding damage from impacts:
"1. How many columns were severed?
NIST admits that only a small percentage of columns were severed: 14% in WTC 1 and 15% WTC 2. This is nowhere near the number of columns that the designers claimed could have been removed without causing a problem.
2. How much were loads redistributed?
NIST admits that the web of steel formed by interlocking perimeter columns and spandrel plates were efficient at redistributing loads around the impact punctures. It estimates that loads on some columns increased by up to 35% while loads on other columns decreased by 20%. The increased loads are nowhere near those the designers claimed the columns could handle: increases of 2000% above the design live loads."
The article is well worth reading, is very comprehensive and is available here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#pancake
Now, I recall that someone questioned what some have labeled the 'alternative conspiracy theory'..... and who benefitted ( cui bono?). Many feel no need to posit an alternative conspiracy theory. It is simply enough to show that the official Government Conspiracy Theory is false. That has been done thoroughly and irrevocably. Beyond that, all can speculate as much as they wish. However, it is clear that if you use the simple criterion of cui bono, it is obvious who benefitted the most ... and... who spoke clearly about benefitting in just those ways prior to 9/11 in the PNAC document, 'Rebuilding America's Defenses'.
All requiring a 'New Pearl Harbor' (a la Zbigniew Brzezinski's original use of the notion in his book, 'The Grand Chessboard'). Unfortunately for American citizens and residents of Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration and its embedded neocons got their entire Christmas 'wish list' as detailed in their subsequent document noted above. Seems not so vaguely but rather strikingly similar to what the Nazis got after the Reichstag Fire.
A structural engineer who was a member of the team assembled by the American Society of Civil Engineers to investigate the World Trade Center site after 9/11 has described numerous phenomena indicating extremely high temperatures suffered by the WTC structural steel. This appears to be further evidence that high-temperature explosives, such as thermate, were used to bring down the towers.
Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. He flew to New York on September 19, 2001 to conduct a two-week reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they'd come down. He was able to examine numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [1]
He said the towers were exceptionally well designed and built, describing the WTC as "the best-designed building I have ever seen." [2] Yet the structural steel had suffered unusual warping and other major damage:
* Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]
* At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]
* He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]
* In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]
* He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]
* He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]
* The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]
* Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11]
These observations indicate that the World Trade Center steel was subjected to very high temperatures. Yet, while postulating that the towers collapsed due to fire (and without the use of explosives), even Thomas Eagar--an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--admitted, "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." [12] One must conclude that the phenomena observed by Astaneh-Asl are therefore highly suspicious.
It may well have been because it offered such revealing clues that the remaining structural steel from the World Trade Center was so rapidly destroyed, being shipped abroad as scrap to be melted down and recycled. CBS News described: "The [cleanup] operation--which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani--goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas." [13] As the New York Times reported, the steel scrap was worth "only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup" was going to cost. Yet the knowledge that could have been gained from it "could save lives in a future disaster." [14]
NOTES
[1] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies." New York Times, October 2, 2001; Robert Sanders, "Report from Ground Zero." Berkeleyan, October 3, 2001; Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually." Chronicle of Higher Education, December 7, 2001.
[2] Keay Davidson, "Berkeley Professor Seeks the Safer Skyscraper." San Francisco Chronicle, October 22, 2001.
[3] Robert Sanders, "Report from Ground Zero."
[4] Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
[5] Keay Davidson, "Berkeley Professor Seeks the Safer Skyscraper."
[6] Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."
[7] "Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction." NewsHour, PBS, May 10, 2007.
[8] Pamitha Reynolds, "Berkeley Prof Analyzes Structural Damage of the WTC." Berkeley Daily Planet, October 20, 2001.
[9] David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel." CBS News, March 12, 2002.
[10] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies."
[11] Ibid.
[12] Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation." Journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society 53 (12) 2001: 8-11.
[13] David Kohn, "Culling Through Mangled Steel."
[14] Kenneth Chang, "Scarred Steel Holds Clues, and Remedies."