Please follow and like us:
Fire Could Not Have Collapsed WTC: Scientists for 9/11 Truth
9/11 Truther David Chandler, a member at the Organizing Committee of Scientists for 9/11 Truth, speaks on some evidences that contradict the official story of the 9/11 attacks as the coverage of the mainstream media is as always absolutely superficial, sixteen years after the attacks that caused nearly 3,000 deaths in the United States on that day, other in the country due to an environmental disaster caused by the attacks, and nearly two millions across the globe due to the endless “War on Terror”.
Through years to date, assaulting civil liberties in the United States as well as spreading of hate and fear to justify a hard-line policy by the Washington regime and its international puppets, and more US military bases all over the world.
Edu Montesanti: Scientists for 9/11 Truth states that, “Jet planes are fueled with kerosene, which is not a high explosive and cannot sever steel or pulverize concrete.” There are specialists who confirm the official story, that says that much fire really can melt steel, and collapse any building burning for some hours as happened in the World Trade Center. How does Scientists for 9/11 Truth respond to this version?
David Chandler: The impacts of the planes had little effect on the buildings. Both of the Twin Towers withstood the impacts and showed no sign of failure in response. WTC7 was not hit by a plane, but it was the building with the most precipitous collapse.
It is incorrect to say the fires in the buildings melted the steel beams or caused them to fail. Most of the jet fuel (kerosene) burned in large fire balls outside of the buildings. What remained behind would have burned off within a few minutes. The fires that continued were fed by ordinary office furnishings.
The flame temperature due to office fires in open air is limited by the chemical reactions taking place, not the “size” of the fire, with a maximum temperature 1000 degrees F less than the melting point of steel. The color of the smoke indicated incomplete combustion was taking place, so the limiting temperature would be even lower. There was a woman seen standing in the hole made by the airplane in the North Tower, leaning on a steel columns and waving. She could not have done so if the temperatures were exceptionally high.
The temperature of the steel lags far behind the flame temperature because it wicks away the heat, so hours of exposure to intense heat would be needed for the steel temperature to rise to the flame temperature. In fact the South Tower burned for only 56 minutes and the north tower for 102 minutes. The short duration of the fires in the Twin Towers precludes the possibility that high temperature caused the steel to fail. Actual tests of steel floor structures subjected to intense prolonged heating fail to cause them to collapse.
Please explain what exactly happened in the buildings, and comment on the evidences to sustain your statements.
The fires could not have caused the collapses. There is clear evidence from numerous sources that explosive demolition techniques were used in the towers and in Building 7. Among these are the rate of fall, the simultaneous failure of all supporting members at once leading to symmetric collapse of the North Tower and Building 7, the lack of resistance to the fall, visual evidence of explosive ejection of material at and below the failure points, and visible evidence of continued explosive reactions in the debris ejected from the building.
Residue in the dust includes billions of iron-rich spheres, indicating temperatures above the melting point of iron in a blast environment that sprayed the molten iron as droplets. Iron spheres are a common effect of thermite reactions. In fact unreacted red-grey chips of thermite fabricated from high tech nanoparticles was found in the dust. These chips react as nanothermite when heated, producing very high temperatures, iron spheres, aluminum oxide dust, and iron spheres as end products. All of these features are consistent with the identification of these chips as nanothermite.
The official story says that WTC7 was burnt by the fire of both WTC 1 and 2, but you have evidences that WTC7 was exploded from inside, right? Please speak on Scientists for 9/11 Truth evidences that point to that.
The Twin Towers were exploded in timed sequences moving down the building, but WTC7 was destroyed with classic controlled demolition techniques low in the building. WTC7 fell in absolute freefall for the first 2.5 seconds, meaning it fell a distance of approximately 8 floors with zero resistance. The falling mass could not have caused the destruction beneath it because an object in freefall has no available energy to do external work. All of its potential energy goes into the kinetic energy of its fall and nothing else.
NIST provided a convoluted scenario for how a failure of a single column might have taken place, but their scenario contradicts observations and does not account for the symmetric freefall with sudden onset that is actually observed. Recent modeling analysis by a team from the University of Alaska proves that the only way NIST’s computerized model was able to fail was by making unwarranted assumptions that contradict the actual construction details of the building.
Furthermore, NIST’s scenario depends on very hot and long lasting fires on the 12th floor around a particular column to get it to fail. Visual evidence of the progress of the fires in the building shows that fires lasted in any one place no longer that 20 minutes, and the fires in the part of the building with the supposedly critical column burned out hours earlier.
Professor Doctor Michel Chossudovsky, one of the world’s most respected researches about 9/11, totally rejects that the attacks were perpetrated by foreign Muslim hijackers, but that they were a total inside job. What can you say about this view?
The science shows that all of the buildings were brought down with techniques that required weeks or months of preparation and involved high level coordination with the hijackers, the military and civil air authorities to allow them to get to their targets unmolested, and access through the security systems of the buildings over a period of weeks or months to set up the demolitions. It involved military grade demolition materials not available on the open market.
The airplane crashes appear to have functioned as a distraction and were not instrumental in bringing down the buildings. All of this points to a high level domestic origin of the planning and execution of the operation.
What are the interests behind the official version, and not permitting any discussion contrary to that?
Clearly, if the 9/11 events were in fact orchestrated from within the military and/or security agencies of the United States, there would be a concerted effort to prevent or derail an open investigation and attempts to marginalize any who effectively question the official myth. This is what we have been experiencing in trying to bring our analysis to the attention of the public.
Simplistic, flawed, and dishonest reasoning are displayed to “debunk” our work, along with the derogatory label “conspiracy theorists.” Another attack is to inject the discussion with transparently crazy theories that can be used as straw man arguments against the 9/11 Truth Movement to obscure the fact that there is a core of solid science that cannot be debunked.
Scientists for 9/11 Truth invites the science-literate portion of the public to read our analysis and make up their own minds. Our work speaks for itself.
How is it to be a scientist contradicting 9/11 official story in the United States? What are your real mission what do you expect from your researches, and what challenges do you face?
Thousands of scientists and engineers who have sufficient integrity and/or positions not dependent on government contracts or public approval have signed petitions demanding a real, open, and independent investigation, something we have not had. Many others feel intimidated by the prospect of losing their jobs and so stay in the shadows. It is an uphill battle to even get a hearing. When our evidence is in fact examined and digested by the scientifically literate population, it is widely endorsed
David Chandler is a MS Mathematics, California Polytechnic University.
Edu Montesanti is an independent analyst, researcher and journalist whose work has been published by Truth Out, Pravda, Global Research, Telesur, 911Truth.org, Brazilian magazine Caros Amigos, and numerous other publications across the globe. www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com