Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

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





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.

A qualified engineer knows that steel framed buildings can and
do collapse from fire. Indeed the building codes require fire
protection material to be applied to structural members to prevent
such a collapse.

I have in my collection photos of 2 large buildings gutted by fire
during the London Blitz of 1940, one was steel framed the
other was built using beams of Baltic oak. The steel framed
building collapsed, the oak framed building had its timbers
charred to a depth of 1" but stayed upright

Moreover trusses such as those used in the WTC buildings are
notoriously prone to such failures, there's an a excellent article
on the risk associated with trusses at

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2005-132/


Fire protection cannot ensure that buildings stand indefinitely.
They are designed to ensure adequate time to evacuate the
building which is what happened in WTC 7


Of course if the fire is preceded by an impact that pre-weakens
the structure and blocks the stairwells from above the impact
point complete evacuation will not be possible and the building
will collapse early.

ALL the qualified engineers who have reviewed the evidence
know what caused the WTC collapse and it wasnt thermite
or explosives, it was fire and impact damage. The evidence
of truss failure is incontrivertable and the subsequant failure
mechanism of buckling is clearly evidenced on the video.

The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.

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 =----

Wake Up! wrote:
"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):


Why do you bother? As "truth" and your other names you asked exactly
the same questions and then called all the responders names,became
vulgar, told them they were wrong, that they had provided "no scientific
proof" and then threw a tantrum before leaving.

As near as I can see the only things you seem to have learned a
jetliners don't fly on diesel fuel and squibs aren't puffs of smoke. I'm
glad I was able to teach you that much.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Wake Up! wrote:
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.

Other than Jones provide cites proving thermite is a
"cutter-explosive." You have been told many times by those of us who
have used it that it is not used for cutting nor is it an explosive.

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!!!

Then again no one had ever flown large civilian jetliners into 100
story buildings either. Why do you ignore experts in the relevant fields
and insist on listening to Jones who is not?


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?

No one said it was, but it was struck by debris from WTC1 and WTC2 and
burned for a long time due to fuels inside the building.

WTC 7 collapsed near symetrically, near free fall speed!

Then explain how it leaned over as it fell. Look at the pile of rubble.

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

Yes, that's what happens when smoke from an ongoing fire is released
due to collapse. It happens in residential fires too.


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!

So what? Nothing there proves a conspiracy. Suppose your a Cessna 172
drops out of the sky and lands on your house while you are at a doctor's
appointment. Does that make you responsible for the destruction?


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!


767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707. Even
if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive those
strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a single 767
strike. Please try thinking logically.



It is time to Wake UP! and face the TRUTH

Take your own advice.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Keith W wrote:
[snip]
The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.
[snip]

Have you looked at the foundation of WTC 7? You wanna talk
about some lessons learned. That collection of support trusses
for a foundation was a single point failure just waiting to happen.

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:15:27 -0500, Scott M. Kozel wrote:
"Wake UP!" wrote:

Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm

That most likely is melting aluminum. It has been said to be likely
that aircraft wreckage piled up in that corner of the South Tower.

You don't even need aircraft wreckage for aluminum to have been
the source of the sparks and apparently molten material. The
external metal sheathing on the World Trade Center towers was
an aluminum alloy [1].

Aluminum's melting point is around 1,200 degrees F, a temperature
that's easily reached in building fires.


ljd

[1] http://americanhistory.si.edu/septem...ord.asp?ID=104

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:50:53 GMT, Wake Up! wrote:
"Wake Up!" wrote in news:Xns978626A6D8B0Atruth@

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.

Which, I guess, means all those engineers who spend so much time
devising fireproofing materials for steel structural members
in buildings have been wasting their time all these years.

Imagine the money that could have been saved in the WTC towers
alone -- all that fireproofing material sprayed on the buildings'
steel structure could have been eliminated, and the costly and
inconvenient effort to update the fire protection that was
still not completed when the WTC towers collapsed was a
colossal waste of time.

If only they'd known what you apparently know -- that fire can't
possibly reduce the yield strength of steel and cause structural
failure.

I guess all those web sites with pictures of what happened to
the steel structure of Madrid's Windsor Building during a fire
on February 2005 are fakes too, right?


ljd

On 14 Mar 2006 08:18:35 -0800, "
wrote:


Keith W wrote:
[snip]
The lessons of the WTC collapse is that such truss construction
techniques should be avoided for high rise buildings, fortunately
they are not widely used which is why previous high rise
fires didnt lead to progressive collapse.
[snip]

Have you looked at the foundation of WTC 7? You wanna talk
about some lessons learned. That collection of support trusses
for a foundation was a single point failure just waiting to happen.

That's what you get when you build a different building than planned on an
already existing foundation. An accident waiting to happen.

Wake Up! wrote:

The WTC 7 leaseholder said (on camera) that it was pulled!

Right, he admitted he was involved.. SURE.

Dan wrote:

Wake Up! wrote:

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!


767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707. Even
if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive those
strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a single 767
strike. Please try thinking logically.


Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".

mrtravel wrote:
Dan wrote:

Wake Up! wrote:

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!


767 is much bigger than 707 and is more massive even when
"underbooked." The towers were designed to withstand a single 707.
Even if they could were designed to take multiple 707 hits and survive
those strikes would have been spread out over a larger area then a
single 767 strike. Please try thinking logically.


Not only that, but the Titantic was designed to be "unsinkable".

Actually neither White Star Lines nor the builders ever claimed
Titanic was unsinkable. That term was started by the press.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired