Ah ben calvaire, me serais-je fait avoir par la propagande de Washington*, MOI?
Steven E. Jones, Département de Physique et Astronomie, Brigham Young University:
The observation of molten metal at Ground Zero was emphasized publicly by Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center Towers, who reported that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (Williams, 2001)
I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron
. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. On the other hand, falling buildings (absent explosives) have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal. The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams [...] Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005)
Firemen and others described flashes and explosions in upper floors near where the plane entered, and in lower floors of WTC 2
just prior to its collapse, far below the region where the plane had struck the tower (Dwyer, 2005). For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion. (De Grand Pre, 2002)
Firefighter Edward Cachia independently reported:
[We] thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down…It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit." (Dwyer, 2005)
And assistant fire commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too. (Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 fichier No. 9110008)
It is highly unlikely that jet fuel was present to generate such explosions especially on lower floors, and long after the planes hit the buildings. Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes." (Field, 2005)
I totally agree with the urgent yet reasoned assessment of expert fire-protection engineers, as boldly editorialized in the journal Fire Engineering:
Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating [result] has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the 'official investigation' blessed by FEMA… is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, [are considerations] for the… present and future generations… (Manning, 2002)
The occurrence of nearly symmetrical, straight-down and complete collapses of the WTC 7
and the Towers is particularly upsetting to the 'official' theory that random fires plus damage caused all these collapses. Even with explosives, achieving such results requires a great deal of pre-planning and expertise. [...] FEMA admitted that WTC 7 collapsed onto a well-confined footprint [...] This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. (Harris, 2000)
Where is the delay
that must be expected due to conservation of momentum
– one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans.
How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? [...] The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.
And these explosives also readily account for the turning of the falling Towers to fine dust as the collapse ensues. Rather than a piling up with shattering of concrete as we might expect from non-explosive-caused progressive collapse (“official theory”), we find that most of the Towers material (concrete, carpet, steel, etc.) is converted to flour-like powder WHILE the buildings are falling. The Towers’ collapses are not a typical implosions, but quite possibly series of “shock-and-awe” explosions – at least the evidence points strongly in this direction. The hypothesis ought to be explored further.
Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: vidéo (serveur 1) vidéo (serveur 2) image par imageréférences citées
De Grand Pre, Donn (2002). “Many Questions Still Remain About Trade Center Attack,” American Free Press, 3 février 2002 [lien]
Dwyer, James (2005). “City to Release Thousands of Oral Histories of 9/11 Today,” New York Times, 12 août 2005, témoignages  
Field, Andy (2004). “A Look Inside a Radical New Theory of the WTC Collapse,” Fire/Rescue News, 7 février 2004. [lien]
Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, 29 novembre 2001
Harris, Tom (2000). “How Building Implosions Work,” [lien]
Manning, William (2002). “Selling out the investigation,” Editorial, Fire Engineering, janvier 2002
Williams, James (2001). “WTC a structural success,” SEAU NEWS; The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah, octobre 2001.Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, Steven E. Jones, septembre 2005
Aussi à voir
* ceci dit, rien dans le post n'incrimine Washington, mais pointe vers une 'inside job'. La propagande fait référence aux lendemains du 9/11, en particulier les études bidons, l'élimination des preuves, etc. Pour la possible implication, peu probable à priori, de l'administration Cheney (par inaction volontaire, par exemple), voir le site de 9-11 Research.Ajout 16 novembre: Pr. Steven E. Jones sur MSNBC!
JONES: Let's start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you? [...] Are we rolling that? CARLSON: No. We just see the building.