physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Here's a research paper by Professor Steven E Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, which brings to light some very interesting evidence regarding molten steel found at ground zero, more info on the demolition squibs, the phenomena of WTC 7, and what appears to be cordite dripping from one of the towers before it falls.
As has been pointed out, Jones work is not a paper, it is not peer reviewed. It has been rejected by the Structural Engineers at his own University. Even without that, Jones' work is ludicrous. He misuses the 2nd law of thermodynamics very badly, he declares a piece of what is obviously reenforced concrete to be a lump of cooled molten steel. Other silliness reigns in Jonestown.
Nobody has of yet been able to find another steel reinforced skyscraper that colllapsed because of a fire. As you can see here: portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310898.shtml
there are many buildings in which fires have raged far longer and hotter than in the WTC towers and have stood firm.
All of the fires mentioned had major differences:
1) Firefighting efforts. The Meridian in Philly never had water ceasing to be pumped on it from the moment the Fire Department arrived. By comparison, the WTC towers were a struggle and the main fire was probably never reached.
2) Different structure design. The Meridian and Hilton were concrete with steel reenforcement not a purely steel structure. The Hilton was a combination of the two.
3) Actual failure. The Meridian building was abandoned for internal firefighting due to fears of internal collapse. Picture of the insides taken a few days later show the support beams sagging very badly. Despite the fact that the fire was about midway up the building, the building was ordered entirely destroyed due to damage. It was a loss. The Hilton's steel structure portion did collapse.
As a matter of fact the WTC itself had an inferno within it that lasted for 3 hours in the 1970's, and that was before they added fireproofing technology like sprinklers, elevator shaft dampers, and electrical system fireproofing.
The WTC already had some fireproofing, and the fire was nowhere near 'inferno' levels. The fire was electrical in nature and never reached the flammable office materials.
You may say that it was a combination of the impact of the jet and the fire that caused the collapse, the fire not melting the steel but weekening it enouph for it to not be able to support the building. However, even if that where true (which experts in "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" seem not to think), the steal beams below the fire would retain their structural integrety and would remain standing or would only bend, causing the building to fall sideways rather than straight down. The reason you need demolitions to bring down a building like this is because you have to cut the steel beams into segments in order for the building to fall straight down.
This is simply not true. Structural Engineers and Failure Analysts reject the Scholars claims and they are in the position to know. You, and the 'scholars' have no concept of the amount of energy the falling mass had.
The fires in the trade center where actually dying down before the collapse, as indicated by black smoke coming from the towers.
Black smoke is not an indication of a dying fire. It is what is being burned.
Here there's a recording of a fire fighter who reached the 78th floor of the second tower and seemed to think that the fire would be easy to contain.
wnyc.org/news/articles/7869
Too bad the main fires were about 3-5 floors above where he was talking about
http://911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html
Most of the evidence I've presented is contained within the Loose Change 2 video.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
Its very rude to blunder into a thread without having at least read part of it. Loose Change is a bad joke, even your beloved 'Scholars' aren't too fond of it. Gravy's work has throughly debunked the LC nonsense.
