Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Collapse of the Twin Towers Did NOT Create the Molten Metal

Expand Messages
  • CM Boisvert
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewWorldOrderWhistleBlowers ... SCIENCE SAYS DEMOLITION: Collapse of the Twin Towers Did NOT Create the Molten Metal
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 1, 2009


      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewWorldOrderWhistleBlowers

      --- On Mon, 11/30/09, qwstnevrytng <qwstnevrytng@...> wrote:



      SCIENCE SAYS DEMOLITION:
      Collapse of the Twin Towers Did NOT Create the Molten Metal

      http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/11/collapse-of-twin-towers-couldnt-have.html


      November 01, 2006


      No, The Collapse of the Twin Towers Did NOT Create the Molten Metal

      When confronted with evidence that temperatures at the World Trade Centers were too high to have been caused by anything other than explosives, defenders of the government story argue that such temperatures were caused by "friction" or "pressure" from the gigantic buildings collapsing in on themselves.
      In other words, they argue that tremendous gravitational energy was released by the collapse of the Twin Towers as parts of the buildings crashed into other parts -- which in turn generated sufficient heat to melt and even partially evaporate the Towers' strong structural steel, and to keep the metal at ground zero in a molten state for months after 9/11.
      However, a professor emeritus of physics has proven that the collapses themselves could not have melted steel.
      And Brent Blanchard told Dr. Steven Jones by telephone that he has witnessed hundreds of controlled demolitions, but has never seen molten metal at any of the demolition sites. (Blanchard is a recognized expert in controlled demolition).
      And remember, not only was molten metal found under the mammoth Twin Towers -- which were 110-stories high -- but molten metal and partially evaporated metal were also found in the debris of World Trade Center building 7. Building 7 -- which collapsed later in the day on 9/11 -- was only 47 stories tall, and was substantially less massive than the Twin Towers. How could a falling 47-story building have caused molten and evaporated metal?
      And yet, somehow, WTC7 apparently experienced equally high temperatures as the Twin Towers after collapse.
      Specifically, here's a chart showing that WTC7 was as hot as WTC 1 and 2:
      The following thermal images of ground zero (the first one showing an overlay of the demolished buildings), show that the debris under building 7 (the trapezoid-shaped building at the upper right) was about as hot as under the Twin Towers:
      Let's put that in perspective:
      If you need help getting oriented as to where WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 were in the thermal photos, this aerial photo shows what the World Trade Center complex looked like from above after it was destroyed:
      And the following aerial photo shows the unique shape of Building 7, to help identify it in the thermal images:
      Are those arguing against demolition of the trade centers saying that the collapse of 47-story building 7 generated the same amount of friction and pressure 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?
      For further images and source material concerning the chart, see the bottom half of this webpage.



      posted by George Washington at 2:26 PM   




    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.