FEMA documents in their Appendix C of its May 2002 WTC Building Performance Assessment Team study, for sample 1, “evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent inter granular melting.” A “sulfur-rich liquid” containing “primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” “penetrated” into the steel.
The extremely high temperatures contradict the official story. Office and hydrocarbon fires burning in open air (~500° to 1,500° F) cannot reach temperatures in the range that iron or structural steel melts (2,700° F). This was even acknowledged by NIST’s Co-Project Leader, John Gross, in the same public talk where he stated regarding the phenomena of molten steel, “I know of absolutely nobody, no eyewitnesses that said so, nobody that’s produced it.” Yet there is abundant proof of the molten metal, which subsequent tests reveal to be iron, in the debris piles. Furthermore, NIST itself performed extensive fire tests to establish the temperatures reached by the WTC office and jet fuel fires. The temperatures established are far below the temperatures required to produce all of the above phenomena – which occurred both before and during the destruction and at Ground Zero.
The steel problem was “solved” by NIST by excluding most of the steel from being systematically examined for failure modes and heat excursions. The steel collected by the Port Authority, which has been stored in Hangar 17 at JFK Airport, was not included in the investigation except for 12 pieces. Of the 236 pieces that NIST possessed, many were excluded based on the circular argument that only columns from impact and fire floors were of interest in the investigation. Thus, NIST avoided having to discuss 51 of its 55 core columns. Sample 1 from FEMA’s Appendix C was also excluded.
In addition, NIST developed a new method of “visual examination” that it then substituted in place of the systematically used tool. NIST’s “paint cracking” method has the following “advantages”: paint cracks can be produced not only by high temperature excursions, but also by “corrosion”/ “environmental degradation” and by plastic deformation; many columns had no paint left for examination, Moreover, by relying on a method that requires microscopic examination, NIST was able to ignore pieces that were obviously heat-affected but had come from non-fire floors. A contractor’s report that employed common visual examination was “reviewed”: NIST contrasted the contractor’s results with their newly developed method and their fire exposure observations, and by employing again a circular argument. NIST’s steel “examination” shows that its “working hypothesis” was in fact its premise, and that NIST gone to great lengths to maintain this premise.
Some want to cite “natural thermite reactions” for the high-temperature phenomena: airplane aluminum must have reacted with rust. This possibility can be ruled out based on the findings of a study that was conducted in 2002 at the Colorado School of Mines for the Minerals Management Service. Officially, the study, whose lead author is a close research associate of T. W. Siewert of NIST, is about thermite-sparking in offshore environments. But due to avery odd study design the question about the feasibility of natural thermite reactions in the WTC is answered too. The authors established the ignition temperatures for rust, dehydrated rust and iron-oxide-based thermite reactions. The necessary temperatures are so high that one can conclude that thermite reactions between airplane aluminum and rust (some rust was on beams according to documents), dehydrated rust (rust dehydrates in fire) or iron oxide (iron oxide was part of the primary paint) were not feasible in the WTC. Also tested was what happens when aluminum impacts rust at very high velocity, so, interestingly, even the possibility that the impacting airplanes caused natural thermite reactions can be ruled out.
The overwhelming evidence of these extremely high temperatures, which normal office fires and jet fuel cannot produce, cries out for a new investigation. The hypothesis of explosive controlled demolition must be examined and, if confirmed, followed wherever it leads, so that Americans can know for sure what was the real cause of the catastrophic loss of life at the WTC on 9/11 and the identities of everyone who was responsible for it.
Pages: 1· 2
No feedback yet
Form is loading...