Thermal Images and Molten Metal Indicate that High-Explosives Brought Down the World Trade Center
When confronted with evidence that high-explosives brought down the World Trade Centers, people often come up with very creative arguments in an attempt to defend the official story.
For example, molten metal was found under ground zero, even though the government's own metal experts have stated that the fires in the Twin Towers were not hot enough to melt steel.
Some people have attempted to rebut this evidence by saying that the enormous heat necessary to create and sustain molten metal was created by the friction created by 110-story buildings collapsing in on themselves. In other words, the argument is that the gravitational energy released by the collapse of the gigantic Twin Towers created tremendous amounts of friction as parts of these huge structures crashed into other parts -- which in turn generated sufficient heat to melt the Towers' strong structural steel.
However, World Trade Center building 7 -- which collapsed later in the day on 9/11 -- was only 47 stories tall, and substantially less massive than the Twin Towers. And yet WTC7 apparently experienced equally high temperatures as the Twin Towers after collapse.
Specifically, this thermal image of ground zero with an overlay of the demolished buildings, taken five days after 9/11, shows that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers. See this web page (lower left) for an explanation of the thermal image, this aerial photo showing the shape of WTC7, and the maps contained here which confirms which building is building 7 on the thermal image.
Are those arguing against demolition of the trade centers saying that the collapse of 47-story building 7 generated the same amount of friction as the collapse of the mammoth 110-story Twin Towers? If not, why were the temperatures at WTC7 as high as at the Twin Towers five days after the collapses?
No Historical Precedent
Moreover, if fires in buildings or rubble can produce molten metal, then there should be examples of molten metal in such instances. So far, no examples have been found, even though BYU physics professor Steven Jones challenged people weeks ago to provide examples.
We would be extremely grateful for examples of controlled demolition involving the use of thermite or other high-explosives -- and information about whether, in those cases, any molten metal was observed.
Postscript: Defenders of the official story also argue that the intense heat at ground zero is explained by the fact that firefighting was delayed by the attempt to find victims, which allowed the fires to rage out of control and reach high temperatures. However, no one was killed or trapped by the collapse of building 7 (since everyone knew it was coming down), and so firefigting efforts were not delayed. See for example, this photo, showing water being sprayed on WTC7 within days of collapse.
For example, molten metal was found under ground zero, even though the government's own metal experts have stated that the fires in the Twin Towers were not hot enough to melt steel.
Some people have attempted to rebut this evidence by saying that the enormous heat necessary to create and sustain molten metal was created by the friction created by 110-story buildings collapsing in on themselves. In other words, the argument is that the gravitational energy released by the collapse of the gigantic Twin Towers created tremendous amounts of friction as parts of these huge structures crashed into other parts -- which in turn generated sufficient heat to melt the Towers' strong structural steel.
However, World Trade Center building 7 -- which collapsed later in the day on 9/11 -- was only 47 stories tall, and substantially less massive than the Twin Towers. And yet WTC7 apparently experienced equally high temperatures as the Twin Towers after collapse.
Specifically, this thermal image of ground zero with an overlay of the demolished buildings, taken five days after 9/11, shows that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers. See this web page (lower left) for an explanation of the thermal image, this aerial photo showing the shape of WTC7, and the maps contained here which confirms which building is building 7 on the thermal image.
Are those arguing against demolition of the trade centers saying that the collapse of 47-story building 7 generated the same amount of friction as the collapse of the mammoth 110-story Twin Towers? If not, why were the temperatures at WTC7 as high as at the Twin Towers five days after the collapses?
No Historical Precedent
Moreover, if fires in buildings or rubble can produce molten metal, then there should be examples of molten metal in such instances. So far, no examples have been found, even though BYU physics professor Steven Jones challenged people weeks ago to provide examples.
We would be extremely grateful for examples of controlled demolition involving the use of thermite or other high-explosives -- and information about whether, in those cases, any molten metal was observed.
Postscript: Defenders of the official story also argue that the intense heat at ground zero is explained by the fact that firefighting was delayed by the attempt to find victims, which allowed the fires to rage out of control and reach high temperatures. However, no one was killed or trapped by the collapse of building 7 (since everyone knew it was coming down), and so firefigting efforts were not delayed. See for example, this photo, showing water being sprayed on WTC7 within days of collapse.
1 Comments:
09/11/2001
had to be a nuclear device. traces of radiation will exist at wtc for years. I suggest people go there with geiger-counters to see for themselves.