SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

U.S. | Arts + Action

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job
by reposted
Saturday Jun 17th, 2006 4:56 PM
author: Jacob Hamblin
Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
See a photo of ground zero, and read more at the Portland IMC:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
by TW
Sunday Jun 18th, 2006 2:34 PM
I originally wrote this by request for theDossier

First of all, Prof. Jones reveals that he was a co-author of a July 1987 Scientific American article titled "Cold Nuclear Fusion." He was a leader of the team at BYU that hyped Cold Fusion to the media as the energy discovery of the century. This is now widely considered one of the most sensational science hoaxes of the past 50 years. I guess he had tenure at the time cuz if not he'd be flipping burgers now in some Provo truck stop. Among physical scientists, anyway, this guy has the reputation of Quasimodo and is doing 9-11 truth no favors by associating himself with it. He's already done immense damage to BYU in this sense.

Like so many "radio personalities" here in the US these days, Alex Jones is such a disgusting gasbag he's painful to listen to, the proverbial Ugly American. In this interview he focuses his gasbaggery on Jones' recent work as "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" of controlled demolition of the twin towers. Prof. Jones just stands by and eats it up.

The "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" amounts to this: Prof. Jones CLAIMS to have obtained a sample of solidified spatter from post-collapse WTC structural steel. He takes the sample-gatherer's word that this is where it came from. He claims to have determined the sample to be sulfur-contaminated iron. Solely from this basis he leaps to the definite conclusion that it's a residue of thermate (thermite with sulfur and potassium permanganate additives) used to cut the tower's columns. This is quite the leap of inductive reasoning.

As we all know, the debris field of the WTC was an oven of steel-melting intensity. All of the WTC's debris was churned together chaotically in this pile. Steel is basically highly refined iron. The element sulfur is present in abundance in many building materials. Drywall, for example (also known as GYPSUM board) consists primarily of plaster, i.e. gypsum, i.e. hydrated calcium SULFATE. Churn lots of steel and gypsum together and cook them for three weeks at temperatures sufficient to melt both and I would not be surprised to see "sulfur-contaminated iron" turning up in samples of same. This is not to say Jones is definitely wrong as to what produced it, just that it's ridiculously dishonest and irresponsible to hype this as "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" of the use of thermate. There is at least one other completely plausible completely mundane possibility.

Prof. Jones focusses on the iron/sulfur mix as a signature of thermate, but makes no mention of aluminum oxide, which would also most definitely be present and which he'd certainly test for and mention if it were. This is a strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better

Alex Jones heaps orgasms of hype on Prof. Jones status as an "eminent scientist" and on his "mastery of the scientific method," which A. Jones then asks Prof Jones to explain. Prof Jones' nutshell explanation is extremely interesting. For one thing he doesn't breathe a word about the all-important practice of testing hypotheses with carefully designed EXPERIMENTS. This is a strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better

In reference to the video we've all seen of yellow-hot burning metal falling out of the WTC inferno, Prof Jones poo-poos the government's declaration that this is burning aluminum, saying that he's worked with MOLTEN aluminum and that's definitely not what's shown. Burning aluminum and molten aluminum are very different animals and Prof Jones completely omits this distinction. This is a strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better

Basically, this guy smells to me like a pathological bullshitter cum "scientist" of exactly the sort who'd involve himself in a sensational science hoax 19 years ago as a bit of self-promoting flim-flammery. If the 9-11 truth movement had any scientific brainpower behind it, they'd throw this guy out on his head.

Although Jones and Jones have lots of fun jerking each other off over their "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" they spend very little time actually presenting it and instead use it as a vehicle to rehash several of the demo-freaks' favorite canards. Alex Jones, like most media professionals, is an expert in Big Lie technique, I daresay. By which I mean he keeps repeating the same shit over and over show after show until his slack-jawed listeners accept it on faith.

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."

-- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister

They rehash, for example, the molten and near-molten steel in the tower rubble as more "smoking-gun PROOF" of controlled demolition. Meanwhile, no spokesperson of the demo-freaks has ever presented a cogent linkage between the heat of the debris pile and explosive demolition. True explosives like plastique do generate incredible heat, but mostly as a superhot expanding gas that would be driven from the building as it collapsed. Thermite is a more viable explanation, but the amount of thermite needed to generate the sum of calories in that pile is preposterous, far more than would be needed to produce collapse. The total thermal energy of that pile has been and remains a weird anomaly that DOES NOT support their claims. My own hypothesis as to what's going on is the most plausible I've seen.

Speaking of which, I found another piece of the smoldering aluminum scenario that fits really well. It turns out that steam can somehow support combustion of aluminum even in the absence of air. Correct me if I'm wrong, but fire teams were soaking the rubble down with high-volume hoses continuously were they not? Normally this liquid's phase transition to gas would dissipate heat dramatically, but in this case it was trickling down into the pile, exploding into steam, and then acting as an ACCELERANT!! The fire teams were unwittingly feeding the fire instead of snuffing it. Wild, huh? This of course assumes my burning aluminum hypothesis is actually what happened. Unlike the demo-freaks, I can be rigorous enough to add this proviso.

Jones and Jones also rehashed the freefall "smoking gun," and I have some new thoughts about this as well:

1) The assumption that the building's structural integrity would impede and prolong collapse is insupportable. Consider video-documented examples of known controlled implosion cases in which only the first floor is blown, with maybe a vertical crease added to insure implosion. If the CD laypeoples' assumption is correct that a steel building frame's integrity should slow collapse to less than the rate of freefall, this should also be true of these cases, but it clearly is not. As I said before, a building's static strength is trivial compared to the DYNAMIC forces unleashed by structural failure. This is a good example of their expectations being based on "common sense" assumptions, not informed knowledge. I guess they're thinking in terms of building a mini-skyscraper out of tinker toys and then trying to collapse it by sitting on it. They'd go "oochy-ouchy, my butt hoit" and give up altogether.

2) it's clear to me that the collapse initiated with disintegration of the top 20 or 40 stories (depending on which tower), resulting in a massive pile of churning rubble falling downward onto the rest of the structure. The really massive structural elements of the towers were the vertical columns in the core. These would have poked through this falling rubble like so many skewers, and were observed to do so, leaving the relatively flimsy horizontal members as the only thing resisting the fall of the rubble. These would have snapped away like nothing. They wouldn't slow it down at all.

This becomes all the more true when you consider that the runaway pile of rubble had to be perturbing the vertical columns wildly, quite possibly rupturing their communicating elements before the pile even reached them. This introduces the possibility that actual progressive failure of the horizontal elements may actually have proceeded FASTER than the rate of freefall, leaving the falling debris with no impediment at all.

This is what comes from ACTUALLY modeling the event in your head, versus faking it while regurgitating a recieved line like the demo-bots. One appreciates that this event is fantastically complicated, and that pretending to "know for sure" how it should have gone is just obnoxious hubris.

3) As you have pointed out before, the blossoming cloud of dust makes it impossible in any case to time the collapse with the precision they claim
by Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
( mferran [at] nycap.rr.com ) Saturday Jun 24th, 2006 5:44 PM
Professor Jones of BYU persists in his refusal to acknowledge the fact that hot Iron is combustible (it burns and generates heat), and he does not respond to the following indictment that he was oblivious of that fact when he announced his conclusions with respect to "molten iron" allegedly found in the burning piles of WTC rubble.

[Note, additonal data and citations have been added to this essay since it was last emailed to Professor Jones on June 20, 2006.]

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ferran
Cc: jfetzer [at] d.umn.edu ; steven_jones [at] byu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 3:18 PM
Subject: WTC IRON BURNS!!!


"ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm
The only likely source of the heat great enough to actually "melt" significant quantities of iron in the piles (or even just raise so much of it to red-hot or to 2000F) would be chemical energy (i.e., "combustion" of some sort). Professor Jones assumes that all the carbonaceous "combustible" matter in the "piles" would have burned away long before the time that the red-hot and molten iron was discovered (weeks after the collapse of the WTC towers). Perhaps it did, by weeks after the collapse. But Professor Jones obviously does not comprehend that the hot, red-hot and molten IRON IS COMBUSTIBLE matter.

Here, Jones clearly missed it, when he wrote: "At these temperatures, steel will melt, and aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including metal oxides which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses. ... The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from?" http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Jones has no clue because he has conception of Steel Burning (iron oxidation).

The Truth is that: HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON.

Professor Jones' comments and conjectures about the origin of the alleged molten iron found within the three huge piles of combustible matter burning after the collapse of the WTC towers, distinctly prove that Professor Jones is oblivious of the fact that Iron Burns.

I found this children's educational webpage that further illustrates that "Professor Jones" (among the "9-11 Scholars") is an incompetent ignoramus because he ignores the scientifically provable (or disprovable) fact that Iron metal itself burns, and that when amassed in large piles can ignite fires (and can even melt itself). The article discusses child-safe experiments observing a very slow oxidation of iron (rusting at room temperature), but also mentions:
"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."
http://www.highlightskids.com/Science/TryThis/h3TT1004_ironBurns.asp?subTitleID=159

Beyond the scope of this child-oriented article, it is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue). It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by this photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC towers:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/fig1.gif
http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2006/06/341368.gif

Ancient Wisdom about burning iron:

19th Century:
"Iron commences to 'burn' at 2500[F], while at the end of the operation in the Bessemer process, when the temperature reaches some 3000[F], the iron burns violently, as demonstrated by examination of the Bessemer flame with the spectro- scope. (See p. 46, Vol. II.)"
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/ncps:@field(DOCID+@lit(ABS1821-0003-230))::
Manufacturer and builder / Volume 3, Issue 6, June 1871

"At 1000C iron burns as easily as wood." http://www.learning-org.com/01.09/0073.html

Thomas Aquinas and other theologians remarked on this famous burning property of Iron:

Aquinas maintains that:
The head causes an influx of sensation and motion to all members of the body. ... [S]omeone can understand “to flow into” (“influere”) in two ways according to the spiritual sense and mode. One mode as principal agent: And thus it belongs to God alone to provide an influx of grace in the members of the Church. In another mode instrumentally: And thus even the humanity of Christ is a cause of the said influx; because as Damascene says ... as iron burns on account of the fire conjoined to it, so were the actions of the humanity of Christ on account of the united divinity, of which the humanity itself was an instrument. Christ, nevertheless, according to the two last conditions of head [governance, influence] is able to be called head of the angels according to human nature, and head of both according to divine nature; not, however, according to the first condition [namely, sameness in nature], unless one takes what is common according to the nature of the genus, according as man and angel agree in rational nature, and further what is common according to analogy, according as it is common to the Son along with all creatures to receive from the Father, as Basil says, by reason of which he is said to be the first-born of all creatures, Col. 1:15.16 http://www.unav.es/cryf/georgemaritain.html

DAMASCENUS, (lib. 3, cap. 17) wrote:
"For not according to its [the flesh's] own operation, but by the Word united to it, He wrought divine things, the Word displaying through it His own operation. For glowing iron burns not by possessing in a natural manner the power to burn, but by possessing this from its union with the fire. Therefore in itself it was mortal, and on account of its personal union to the Word, quickening." http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/augsc-05.html
Iron smiths (Blacksmiths) modern and ancient are aware that glowing Iron Burns:
"With bellows blowing additional air through the fire, it can reach temperatures of about 3,000° Fahrenheit. Iron burns at 2,800°, however, so the smith has to be careful to not ruin his work! … The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead."
http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y

Also of note: Faraday's lectures and a demonstration of iron powder burning: http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html ("Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith, and was born at Newington Butts, near London, September 22, 1791.")

A WWII witness in Germany recounts seeing the "iron" of three Russian tanks "burn" from March 9 1945 until November 3, 1945: http://members.tripod.com/~radde/RaddesFlight.html ("The three Russian tanks before Bresin still burned as we passed by them on the morning of 11-3, and this taught me something surprising: iron burns.") This account suggests that the "critical mass" of iron metal that will sustain itself burning may be quite small compared to the huge amounts of iron debris the WTC piles. This account of prolonged iron combustion also supports the conclusion that the main source of high heat in the piles of the WTC 1, 2 and 7, weeks and months after their collapse, was due to burning iron in these piles. This conclusion could be readily verified or disproved through simulation or experimentation.

The other interesting thing about "iron fire" (fast oxidation of iron) is that it creates a "vacuum" of sorts that "sucks" oxygen to itself. Ordinary carbonaceous "fire" creates carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon dioxide (CO2), which are gases that can take the place of consumed oxygen (02) gas. Carbon monoxide production releases two molecules of CO gas per one O2 molecule consumed. Thus, such a carbon fire requires a "convection" current to remove the hot carbon mon/dioxide (out the top) to make room for more cold oxygen to be brought in (at the bottom).
By contrast, an "iron fire" converts the oxygen gas (and possibly also nitrogen gas, but that is tangent) into a solid (rust). Thus, the burning iron metal effectively sucks atmospheric oxygen INTO the pile of burning metal, regardless of convection currents. Convection currents are a strong mechanism for REMOVING heat from a fire. Of course convection currents will also be present even in a huge iron pile furnace, but a result of direct conversion of oxygen gas into a solid (rust) is that there are weaker convection currents and that means that the heat of combustion escapes more slowly from the metal fire furnace than from a carbonaceous fire furnace. Thus, since the heat of combustion does not leave with the combustion products, a metal-air furnace could become much "hotter" faster than a carbon-air furnace of the same scale (e.g., at the same oxygen demand level).
Theoretically, there is no limit upon the temperature that such a large metal-fire could attain. It could, in theory, attain a temperature high enough to not only melt iron, but also to boil (vaporize) iron, but not at the same location at the same time. (You cannot maintain solid, liquid, and gaseous iron at the same location, because "melting" and "vaporization" occur at greatly different temperatures). The difficulty with that however is that the molten (burning) iron would tend to settle into a pool, having a smaller surface area (on its top surface only), thus reducing its rate of oxidation.

It has also been suggested that Sulfur especially from tons of decomposing Gypsum (a Sulfur ore used in sheetrock walls and partitions in offices and homes) in the piles accelerated the oxidation or melting of the iron burning in the piles. "Sulfur is widely distributed in nature. It is found in many minerals and ores, e.g., iron pyrites, galena, cinnabar, zinc blende, gypsum..." http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/Sulpher
"Dust and debris deposits associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center have left a distinct fingerprint on the sedimentary record in New York Harbor, scientists have found. Their results appear in the January 21, 2003, issue of the journal EOS, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. ... The high levels of calcium, strontium, and sulfur concentrations found in the near-surface sediments ..., are consistent with presence of gypsum as a parent material. Gypsum is extensively used as drywall in building construction."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-01/nsf-sfg011603.php
The "Sulfides" produced when sulfer dioxide (e.g., from decomposed Gypsum) contacts burning iron have been identified as an agent that supposedly accellerated the "deterioration" of the steel in the burning WTC piles, on a macromolecular level.
"A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure ... Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid ...." http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
"Gypsum does not have a true melting point, as it decomposes under heat before it can melt" http://www.gp.com/build/PageViewer.aspx?repository=bp&elementid=3358 With high heat, Gyspum decomposes and releases Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, which is a weak oxidizer that can rapidly transfer both its sulfur and oxygen to the exposed iron surfaces in the piles. "Many metals, including zinc, aluminum, cesium, and iron, incandesce and/or ignite in unheated sulfur dioxide." http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg116.html
"In some cases, SO2 behaves as both a reducing and oxidizing agent (metals such as tin, iron and magnesium burn in SO2 to form mixed sulfides and oxides)."
http://www.intox.org/databank/documents/chemical/sulfdiox/cie714.htm
and http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/EHSRM/HAZCOM/MSDS/sulfurdioxide.pdf

In other words, Sulfur Dioxide gas (e.g., from decomposing Gypsum wallboard) spontaneously reacts (combines) with iron metal (cold or hot), turning it into iron sulfides and iron oxides (i.e. burning the iron). The sulfides introduced into iron (sulfidation) by exposure of iron to Sulfur Dioxide gas have been used by humans (blacksmiths) for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been understood in chemical terms for centuries, but apparently, such chemistry is not understood by BYU Professor Jones.
"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)"
For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by "welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron at its surface.
Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it). Sulfur Dioxide gas, has a distinct impact on the nose, and is a respiratory irritant, because it forms sulfurous acid when it combines with water or moisture in the human body. Sulfur Dioxide can be further oxidized to form sulfuric acid (when added to water). High concentrations of Sulfurous fumes emanating from the piles at Ground Zero have been documented, and have been identified as a probable cause of respiratory ailments suffered by many rescue workers and cleanup crews. "One of the America's top air-quality scientists test the air around Ground Zero and tells NBC's Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Team he was shocked to find alarming levels of sulfuric acid and fine particles more than three weeks after the attack. (MSNBC, October 29, 2003)" http://www.asthmamoms.com/worldtradecenterarticles2003.htm

Professor Jones demonstrates his ignorance of the basic "Blacksmith" chemistry of sulfidation-by-S02-from-fire with his following oblivious or dishonest statements: "Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports. ... While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. ... Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job."

In addition to sulfidation of cold iron by its exposure to sulfurous (e.g., SO2) fumes, sulfidation by an even more direct transfer of the sulfur and oxygen from Gypsum to Iron might occur where Gypsum (dust) is in direct contact with the burning (e.g., red hot) iron.

Another's lucid rebuttal of Professor Jones' conjectures about the sulfidated iron found in the burning piles of WTC wreckage is self-published as follows:
"The "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" amounts to this: Prof. Jones CLAIMS to have obtained a sample of solidified spatter from post-collapse WTC structural steel. He takes the sample-gatherer's word that this is where it came from. He claims to have determined the sample to be sulfur-contaminated iron. Solely from this basis he leaps to the definite conclusion that it's a residue of thermate (thermite with sulfur and potassium permanganate additives) used to cut the tower's columns. This is quite the leap of inductive reasoning. As we all know, the debris field of the WTC was an oven of steel-melting intensity. All of the WTC's debris was churned together chaotically in this pile. Steel is basically highly refined iron. The element sulfur is present in abundance in many building materials. Drywall, for example (also known as GYPSUM board) consists primarily of plaster, i.e. gypsum, i.e. hydrated calcium SULFATE. Churn lots of steel and gypsum together and cook them for three weeks at temperatures sufficient to melt both and I would not be surprised to see "sulfur-contaminated iron" turning up in samples of same. This is not to say Jones is definitely wrong as to what produced it, just that it's ridiculously dishonest and irresponsible to hype this as "absolutely conclusive smoking-gun PROOF" of the use of thermate. There is at least one other completely plausible completely mundane possibility. Prof. Jones focusses on the iron/sulfur mix as a signature of thermate, but makes no mention of aluminum oxide, which would also most definitely be present and which he'd certainly test for and mention if it were. This is a strange omission. Prof. Jones knows better "
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/17/18281125.php

For practical purposes, all this means that a huge pile of iron beams (e.g., mixed in with tons of other materials initially burning) can itself begin to burn like huge iron logs in a pile furnace, and there is no reason not to expect this system to reach a temperature high enough to melt iron. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, released from burning organic materials, and/or from decomposing Gypsum, in the burning piles will spontaneously combine (react) with cold or hot iron, adding more heat to the iron, and adding "sulfides" to the steel and thus lowering its effective melting temperature.

The first "molten" iron in the WTC piles was reportedly discovered WEEKS AFTER the collapse of the WTC towers, and molten iron was reportedly found regularly during the following MONTHS during excavations of the huge piles. The only rational explanation for this steady-state phenomenon is IRON BURNING. "Professor Jones" is not a rational man, and thus he fails to consider the fact that Iron Burns, and instead assumes that the reported "molten iron" was all created (by surreptitious "Thermite") on September 11, 2001 and that all this red-hot liquid metal just stayed clumped together on its chaotic descent down 70+ floors and then stayed in molten form until it was dug up weeks and months later.

Further, as an aside, it is total idiocy for Jones and his associates to assume that someone intent upon both bringing down the WTC towers and being undetected in doing so would go to the trouble of actually "melting" some of the iron (let alone allot of it) within the iron support columns (steel will not "melt" until reaching temperatures of nearly 3000F), rather than just heating some of them to the much lesser temperature point at which the iron would EXPAND and DEFORM (see photos linked below) and become worse than useless to support the enormous weight of the building. (That temperature can be scientifically calculated given the load parameters, and was evidently equal to or less than the core temperature of the carbonaceous office fires spanning an enormous area e.g., one square acre in size, on each of several floors of each WTC tower). Note: "A typical house fire can reach 2000 degrees Fahrenheit after just five minutes of flame." http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/roundup/online/2004/1104_p4_7.pdf "THE TYPICAL HOUSE FIRE REACHES A TEMPERATURE OF APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN HUNDRED DEGREES [Fahrenheit]" http://www.gia.edu/newsroom/3685/broadcast_content.cfm Aluminum melts at about 1218 F. It is an observable fact that virtually all carbonaceous-fires (e.g., bonfires, house fires, burning-paper fires, airplane fires) are readily capable of melting aluminum. (Note: "Fire" is not synonymous with "flame".)

When even smaller aluminum aircraft burn on the ground, the resulting fire usually "melts" their aluminum portions, thus proving temperatures exceeding 1200 degrees Fahrenheit:

Aircraft Crash: Aluminum Fire


http://www.nps.gov/yuch/Expanded/b24/b24_graphics/aerialview_big.jpg


"The forward portion of the fusilage [sic] containing the cockpit burned, the aluminum being almost completely consumed by the heat of the fire which ranged from 1310 degrees to 2100 degrees (F)." http://www.nps.gov/yuch/Expanded/b24/b24.htm



These temperature estimates exceed the melting point of aluminum. See also the burning-aircraft photos in this thoughtful rebuttal of Professor Jones' lunatic "thermite" theory. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm ("Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings yet it's aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was the contents like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt.") (unfortunately, the author of that article also mistakenly assumed that iron is "non-combustible")



It should also be kept in mind that "aluminum ... ignites at relatively low temperature," Aluminum, "melts at about 1,220[F] degrees. At about 1,400[F] degrees, it can automatically ignite and burst into flames without any spark" "The formation of aluminum oxide is accompanied by the release of a tremendous amount of heat ... temperatures can reach around 5,000 degrees."

http://www.dmanuta.com/dmm/aluminum.doc



More information about aluminum is provided here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf (although I think he tends to oversell the role of melted aluminum in the collapse of the WTC)



In other words, why use readily DETECTIBLE "thermite" (or even "explosives") when just burning tons of paper, plastic, rugs, aircraft-chairs, clothes, flesh, computers, (perhaps aluminum metal), and some hydrocarbon (jet) fuel, would (and evidently did) accomplish the same result?

To bolster his nonsensical conclusions, Professor Jones says absurd and misleading things like: "Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail." http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/240406thermiteidentified.htm

Professor Jones is an attention whore, who does not check his facts:

The essay at http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/articles_and_books/stone_magazine/fire_trap.html by an early American civil engineer of great repute (William Sooy Smith, 1830-1916) explains the known weaknesses of Iron (steel) beams and columns exposed to fire. He notes that the primary mechanism of structural failure in steel buildings is the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE generated in the steel itself when it EXPANDS due to heating by FIRE. He describes the destruction of several steel frame buildings due to the heat of fire, including one in New York city. In view of these examples, there is a warning (or prophesy) by the Fire Chief of the City of New York of the eventual collapse of a very tall steel frame building, (such as the World Trade Center buildings), due to exposure to the heat of fire. His essay is essential reading for anyone who would express or consider an opinion about the likelihood that a steel framed building exposed to fire would be brought down by the heat of fire.

Excerpts:
1) "Witness the Manhattan Savings Bank building, Broadway and Bleeker street, New York, which was destroyed a few weeks ago by the heat generated in the burning of the ... building next to it."

2) "fire ... partly destroyed the Athletic Association building in this city. ... and it is evident that if this heat had continued but a little longer the whole structure would have fallen."

3) "And notably at the burning of the Tribune building in Minneapolis, about three years ago, which resulted in its entire destruction."

"There may be steel buildings in which the fireproofing has been so well done that they will pass through an ordinary fire without such failure. But if the steel becomes even moderately heated its stiffness will be measurably diminished, and the strength of the upright members so reduced as to cause them to bend and yield. This is more likely to occur, as the horizontal beams and girders will at the same time expand (unequally from the different degrees of temperature) and throw the posts out of vertical and into buckling positions. This is the third difficulty. ... The third difficulty, resulting from the expansion and contraction of the metals employed in the construction of tall buildings, may be obviated by protecting these metals absolutely from any considerable change in temperature..."
Chief Bonner, of the fire department of New York, says in reference to the destruction of the Manhattan Bank building:
....We shall have in this city, unless the citizens of New York are warned in time, a calamity by fire which will rend their hearts. ... The heat thrown from a large burning building of any height is immense. ... I am prepared to declare, from my experience, that a building of brick and yellow pine in case of fire is easier to manage, and the contents have more chance of being saved than the modern fire-proof building. In the former structure the fire burns more slowly and has no chance to concentrate its heat as in the iron and steel structure.

Chief Swenie, of the Chicago fire department, is quoted in the essay as follows:

"I think very much as Bonner does," said Fire Marshal Swenie to-day, when his attention was directed to a statement of the chief of the New York fire department to the effect that the modern skyscraper is a veritable firetrap. .... Fire in a room so filled with goods might in very short time gain such headway as to imperil seriously the entire structure by the expansion, warping or twisting of the iron or steel framework.

No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to expand. The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place. At the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. before you know where you are something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.

... It does not take a great amount of heat to cause steel and iron to expand, and when beams and columns begin moving something has got to break. Suppose a fire breaks out in one of these buildings. We work at it from below, and the steel beams expand, the ceiling breaks and the floor above comes down. ...

The statements of Professor Jones and others that "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail" are insane distortions of reality and misrepresentations of practical experience of fire-fighters and engineers (See http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html A fire in a Madrid steel-frame building collapsed 10-story sections of the building -even without a plane crash weakening those sections-, and almost brought down the rest of it, which had to be torn down. "At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)" ) See also: http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/02/060206-30A.jpg

Professor Jones' irresponsible claims disparaging the capacity of fire to damage and collapse iron/steel structures are readily proved false by photographs of iron beams distorted and large sections of buildings collapsed by fire, including those photos of the distorted iron beams in the highway bridge that I include (below).

As for Jones' claims that a molten metal pooled and pouring out of the floors near where the planes impacted was necessarily iron, not aluminum: How does Jones "get rid of" the Molten Aluminum that would result from contact of the airplane parts with the alleged molten iron? Molten iron in contact with solid aluminum will produce molten aluminum and solid iron, or motel aluminum and molten iron (i.e., always molten aluminum). The molten metal emerges (only) at the same corner and at the same floors of the WTC where the aluminum body of the aircraft "gently landed." What a coincidence. Also, it almost certain that much of the aluminum of the aircraft had melted in the heat of the fire(s), so if "iron" can "pool" there and pour out as Jones claims, why wouldn't some of the tons of molten aluminum (which just happened to land there) also pour out? What happened to the molten aluminum according to Jones? Jones only asserts that melted aircraft aluminum "would flow away from the heat source ... Thus, the observed molten metal flowing from WTC 2 on 9/11 cannot be aluminum."

Why would melted aluminum "flow away from the heat source" if not by action of gravity and the shape of the surface (floors) it was pooled on? Molten Iron would follow the same path as molten aluminum. And, why does Jones suppose that "out a window" is not "away from the heat source"? Why would (pooled?) molten iron have a preference over pooled molten aluminum to flow "away" out of a window from the same location?

More fundamentally, what good is molten iron falling out of a window to someone who wants to use it to HEAT a VERTICAL IRON BEAM to the point of failure???? In order to USE thermite to heat something, you have to let the molten iron transfer its heat to that thing, which means that the molten iron would cool and solidify if were actually USED to heat something. And, since Jones claims that the thermite was placed on the internal columns of the building (since they failed first), how and why would molten iron show up at the outside perimeter (near a corner) to fall out of a window? Thermite charges are always used ABOVE (or inside) the subject to be heated, because any other position would result in the hot molten iron formed by thermite flowing down away from the subject to be heated and being useless waste. Jones offers no explanation for why anyone would go to the trouble of using "thermite" to produce many gallons of WASTE molten iron that was not kept in intimate contact with vertical Beams and therefore served no purpose other than to fall out of a window and attract attention to itself. So, shall we call Jones' Theory: The Theory of the Incompetent Thermite Bombers Who Just Needed to Call Attention to their Handiwork by Pouring Molten Iron out of a Window. Or, maybe the Airplanes were really Hijacked by well-intentioned American Patriots who knew that the only way to expose the secret plot to destroy the WTC with Thermite was to fly a plane into the buildings at exactly where the Thermite was installed to hopefully cause some of its residue to fall out a window where the World could see it and certainly know that it was "molten iron" produced by thermite. Bless their souls.

Jones writes:
"Dramatic footage reveals yellow-to-white hot molten metal dripping from the South WTC Tower just minutes before its collapse: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. Photographs capture the same significant event, clearly showing liquid metal dropping from the South Tower, still hot as it nears the ground below:"
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/MoltenCloseup1.JPG http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Molten2Low.JPG


"Who can deny that liquid, molten metal existed at the WTC disaster? The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 oC."

Jones admits that: "We note that aluminum has many free electrons, so it reflects ambient light very well -- and it appears 'silvery'. Aluminum ... aluminum would appear silvery due to high reflectivity combined with low emissivity..."

Look at the shiny blocky highly reflective (silvery) solid masses that were produced from the falling (cooling) molten metal, seen in the bottom of the photo above right. Is it solid Iron, or solid Aluminum?

I believe that it may be possible to "prove" that the molten metal falling out of the WTC was aluminum based on its behavior (e.g., breaking up in the air, failure to "spark" white all around, and turning into a blocky silvery solid while falling). Aluminum is much less massive (dense) than iron, so molten aluminum will be more affected by air resistance than molten iron would be. See the horizontal shift of the falling molten metal in both of the photos above. (E.g., Aluminum would be broken up out of a poured stream (or blown to one side) sooner than heavier molten iron) Also, at any given temperature, molten iron would probably be differently viscuous or would have different surface tension than molten aluminum. Thus, it would visibly behave differently upon being poured of a window. The photos show molten metal pouring out of the WTC that appears to be somewhat widely dispersed (and shifted horizontally) by wind and air resistance, suggesting that it is lighter than iron. [It just does not quite "look" like a stream of heavy liquid iron.] Experimentation or simulation could prove or disprove this hypothesis.

Keep in mind also that Jones is oblivious that hot (molten) Iron Burns spontaneously in air.

Another problem with Jones' theory that this falling molten metal is "iron" (and not aluminum) is that IF it were IRON, at the temperature of melted iron, some of it would probably have constantly been seen exploding/flashing/burning into bright white Light upon being released as small particles in the air. "The smith's fire contains too much oxygen to allow iron to melt; as it approaches its melting point the iron burns instead." http://www.osv.org/cgi-bin/CreatePDF.php?/tour/index.php?L=12&PDF=Y

Read Faraday's demonstration of moderately heated iron particles burning in air, producing "scintillations".
"I have here a circular flame of spirit of wine, and with it I am about to show you the way in which iron burns, because it will serve very well as a comparison between the effect produced by air and oxygen. If I take this ring flame, I can shake, by means of a sieve, the fine particles of iron filings through it, and you will see the way in which they burn. [The lecturer here shook through the flame some iron filings, which took fire and fell through with beautiful scintillations.]" http://www.fordham.edu/HALSALL/MOD/1859Faraday-forces.html
Absent constant bright White "flashes" of burning iron droplets/particles, it more probably was aluminum at or near its melting temperature. I have "poured" molten aluminum that I got by melting scrap in a wood-fire, short distances, and that did not readily produce flashes of light (maybe because it cools down faster in cold air than it can oxidize), although it theoretically can. (molten aluminum is fairly tame) I have not "poured" molten iron, but see this photo showing the smaller iron droplets burning bright WHITE in air during even a very short pouring operation at a foundry:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/features/askaway/industrial/images/iron270.jpg

And see here, the veritable fireworks of hot iron particles diverging and exploding into white light/flashes during a pour:

http://www.ship-technology.com/contractor_images/daros/Castingclose-2.jpg
"In the foundry. The cast iron is being poured into the sand mould."

http://www.ship-technology.com/contractors/propulsion/daros/daros4.html

And, see all the bright white sparks flying in this series of photographs of an iron pour:
http://www.taylor.org/~argus/all/burn/00/second_roll/iron_pour/

Dante observed and wrote about this commonplace property of poured molten Iron, in his The Divine Comedy:
"I could not endure it long, but enough to see him sparkle all round, like iron poured, molten, from the furnace. And suddenly, it seemed that day was added to day, as though He who has the power, had equipped Heaven with a second sun." http://www.tonykline.co.uk/PITBR/Italian/DantPar1to7.htm
This video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11. noted by Jones does show a few reluctant "sparkles", (which of course could also be consistent with aluminum particle flashes), but does not quite show the constant "sparkle all around" that would be expected (by Dante) from poured molten iron at the temperature of 1000C claimed by Jones.
Also, more definitely, the falling molten material clearly turns into a silver colored (highly reflective) (flat, blocky) solid material after it cools (as soon as it stops glowing) after falling down a number of stories (strongly suggesting aluminum metal, not iron). Solid iron is generally not that highly reflective without polishing, but aluminum is. [Molten iron would probably not loose its glow and convert into a solid so quickly, since it does not conduct heat as well as aluminum and because it would be formed much hotter than molten aluminum.
Also, iron would be expected to coalesce into a rounder clump while falling before solidifying. [Shot towers are used to form iron ball-bearings, and lead musket balls, out of poured molten metal. But, there is no indication that aluminum can be formed into round balls by this method, perhaps because it cools down to quickly] If the "shot tower" behavior of iron (forming sperical balls of molten iron before solidifying) holds with larger amounts of poured iron, then the molten metal pouring out of the WTC, IF IT WERE IRON WOULD HAVE FORMED CANON-BALL SHAPED gobs of molten metal before it cooled down and solidified.
The falling metal pieces formed by that pour out the window of the WTC tower are clearly NOT ROUND and are very elongated, or flat, indicating a very rapid cooling of the falling poured (aluminum) metal. [These distinctions can be readily proved or disproved by experimentation or calculation]. Jones does not comment upon the silvery flat, blocky, (not round) metal pieces visible falling in the photo frames in his own thesis.

The NISC report seems to agree:
"The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum." (p. 375)
There is of course the possiblity that the falling molten metal was some other material from the airplane or offices other than aluminium or iron. But, I believe that there is enough information from the video to scientifically determine its approximate denisty and also its Specific Heat, its melting/solidifying temperature, and its thermal conductivity. The latter determinations could be based on standard formulas used to determine cooling rates due to "forced convection."
"Bah. This guy has been debunked all over the web. Professor Stephen Jones is wrong."

http://www.answers.com/topic/steven-e-jones linked from http://reddit.com/info/48t1/comments

"A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."

About Professor Jones, assocated with the so-called "9-11 Scholars" website, I previously wrote (to him) substantially the following assessment of his wacky half-baked theories about thermite and molten iron:

Speaking as an engineer of high academic achievment, I am shocked that Brigham Young University has employed an ignorant moron of such epic and treasonous proportions. I will be further shocked if he is not removed promptly from his position of trust and confidence. It has been my understanding that the Latter Day folks are a close knit group who watch out that their members far and wide do not embarrass the community. In other words, it is my hope that the Latter Days will take the initiative to contact the leadership at BYU so that justice to the truth may be served.

Excerpt of published assertions by BYU professor Jones:
"Jones argues that the WTC buildings did not collapse due to impact or fires caused by the jets hitting the towers but collapsed as a result of pre-positioned "cutter charges." Proof, he says, includes:

. Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.

.... No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says."
Having seen first hand the rubble of the WTC on the night of September 11, 2001, I can tell you there was fire and fires everywhere around the scene, and fumes rose steadily from the "piles" after the collapse, and fumes continued to rise from the piles when I went back to Ground Zero over a week later. As I described it " I saw a hellish vapor slowly rising everywhere from the rubble like something out of Dante [Inferno]." See: While Leaving Ground Zero - September 11, 2002 http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=4108 (Note, I am not the same "Mark Ferran" as the NYC fireman by that name, and we have never met) When I first heard about the fires in the WTC buildings that morning, I said to myself, in my office, that the metal must be getting very hot. When I later saw the images of smoke and fire billowing out of those buildings, I knew they would not stand. After they fell, the huge piles of iron beams and combustible materials formed two enormous furnaces, comprising burning office materials, burning metal, and burning human flesh (not to mention many tons of combustible aircraft aluminum and iron, i.e., thermite) which over the course of several weeks and months. It was widely reported that the temperature (e.g., measured by infra red imaging from above) in the interior of the piles INCREASED in the weeks after the collapse of the towers, due quite obviously to the combustion of combustible matter in these large furnaces.
The moron employed at BYU seems to have no conception of the nature of a furnace, no concept of the fact that metals burn, and seems to be unable to comprehend that there were much combustible materials in the piles from the collapsed buildings OTHER THAN what the airplanes brought in.
"[W]hile the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper [and humans, and aluminum of the planes]. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F [even before the buildings collapsed]." The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=4&c=y
Even ordinary dry WOOD (charcoal) in a large enough furnace, is capable of melting iron:
http://www.uky.edu/.../BigSinking/ Furnace/furnace.htm

While a mixture of aluminum and (oxygen and iron) (e.g., rust) called "Thermite" is capable of producing molten iron, evidently, a combination of metalic Iron and Oxygen (or Carbon Monoxide) is itself capable of melting iron in a large pile furnace. Large piles of pure iron dust are capable of "burning" themselves into a molten mass solely due to the heat of combustion of the iron itself. Iron itself is a combustible material (and is commonly used in powder form to warm hands and feet in little packs sold at Wal-Mart etc., and in MREs).

It is certainly known to be possible for ordinary hydrocarbon fuels (like oil, gasoline or jetfuel) alone to destroy heavy iron and iron-concrete structures, as in the case of the Bridgeport gas tanker fire which destroyed a highway overpass formed of large iron I-beams and concrete. http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t3161.html ("a fiery tanker truck [carrying 12,000 gallons of fuel oil ] melted a bridge on Interstate 95" in Massachusetts) See also http://www.oe.netl.doe.gov/docs/eads/ead032604.doc

I believe that these photos (below, and seven images at EHOWA) fairly illustrate the type of expansion, distortion and yielding that most likely happened to destroy some of the iron columns supporting the enormous weight of the World Trade Centers' top 30+/- floors.




http://images.ehowa.com/alabamatruck/alabamatruck1.jpg

The iron columns of the WTC towers did not "melt" in the scientific sense of the word, but they certainly EXPANDED (due to heat), and yielded (due to the enormous pressure caused by their own thermal expansion). Just turn these above pictures from horizontal to vertical, and think what would happen if that beam were instead a column holding up a heavy building. (Look at the distorted iron, heated by ordinary hydrocarbon fuel burning, and keep in mind what Professor Jones said: "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail." ) Also note how the metal of the fuel tank itself so completely disintegrated. (see the other photos at at EHOWA ). It's tank may have been made of flammable aluminum metal, like the skin and structure of a jetliner, or of stainless steel. I believe that the fires confined inside the world trade center towers could have been much hotter than this fairly "open air" (unconfined) gasoline fire, due to the greater containment of the heat-of-combustion by the ceilings, floors and debris in the burning WTC towers. See http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944

The False Leaders of the so-called "9-11 Truth" movement typically do not understand or don't acknowledge the power of ordinary FIRE nor the known weaknesses and behaviors of iron exposed to fire, and they peddle their false explanations of occurrences to people even more ignorant than them. They are the blind leading the blind. Most of the uneducated people (e.g., WebFairy, Lisa Guliani, Victor Thorne etc.) selling videos books, etc., claiming that "fire could not have destroyed the WTC towers" are just pathological liars who will tell any lie to take a buck from the gullible.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "maximum temperature" for the combustion of any dry fuel. If you raise the temperature of a dry fuel, like paper, or wood paneling, or charred flesh, and then expose it to oxygen, its temperature will INCREASE, not remain the same. Duh!!! The bigger the furnace, the higher the temperature of the unburned fuel gets before it combines with oxygen, and thus still higher will its temperature be when it finally combusts. "Temperature" inside of a furnace system is solely a function of how much heat enters the system versus how much leaves the system, over time, and not a function of the type of fuel. Insulation, or a large enough mass, slows the exit of heat from the system. (Note: melting things removes energy from a system) A large pile of debris forms an insulating furnace retaining much of the heat of combustion, raising the internal temperature, evidently high enough to melt iron. That is how the ancients used piles to make and refine and melt iron from ore.

It is shocking that a "professor" would assume that molten iron found weeks or months later in the bowels of a huge pile of continuously burning debris (containing tons of combustible iron and other materials) would have to have been generated at the very begining of the fire, or even before the pile was formed. It is even more nonsensical for him to presume that a molten metal supposedly formed before the buildings collapsed would remain molten for months without some subsequent source of heat being applied to it. And, it is totally absurd for him to presume that a molten (liquid) metal supposedly formed in the top floors before the buildings collapsed (his "thermite" theory) would remain both molten and intact after it fell 70+ stories in a chaotic collapse while even more solid objects (bones, concrete, flesh) were obliterated on the way down. The "professor" also seems to be oblivious that (aircraft) aluminum is itself a high-energy fuel, that would not be found in bright molten form weeks later (because it burns continuously when molten and exposed to air). (They use Aluminum metal as fuel to propel the Space Shuttle into Orbit around the Earth).

Also apparent, is that the so-called "professor" is incompetent or lazy in the use of search engines, such as Google. On this very subject, I wrote this back in 2001:
"Furthermore, if it is true that "pools of molten steel" were found in the (basement of) remains of the WTC twin towers, this molten material probably began to form and accumulate days AFTER THE COLLAPSE of the tower, when the huge mass of material trapped the heat of slowed combustion that continued within the pile. I saw the fumes of combustion folks, the piles were slowly burning after the buildings collapsed. Everyone with the slightest recollection of the events knows this. Even a huge pile of iron filings will form a red-hot fused mass of metal because the heat produced internally by rusting will build up in the pile. Any combustible material in the "piles" of the WTC that was exposed to heat and to any amount of infiltrating air (oxygen) would contribute to hot-spots. All of the conjectures that say the steel formed before the buildings collapsed are ignorant and preposterous. The Steel in the rubble of the WTC melted, if at all, because of the enormous size of the piles and presence of much combustible materials in them, not merely because of the burning of jet fuel. Those who say otherwise are either lying, or are overlooking something fundamental. While jet fuel flame burning in OPEN AIR will may not maintain the temperature you need to melt steel, if you inject any fuel mixed with air into a huge porous mass that cannot rapidly release the built-up heat of combustion, you will produce a furnace capable of melting steel or practically any other metal. An open flame rapidly dissipates the heat of combustion, but a furnace conserves and accumulates the heat of combustion. Any fuel will produce this effect in the appropriate furnace. Its like the difference between the heat of an open wood-flame of a single stick burning in open air, compared to the (steel-melting) white-hot heat produced in the bottom of a large pile of wood and burning wood-coals. This is also the principle by which large piles of organic materials (e.g., saw-dust, leaves, hay) will spontaneously begin to burn- the heat of decay builds up inside them. "No matter which mechanism is involved, the oxidation reaction will generate heat. If there is some form of insulation, which is usually provided by the mass of the material itself, the heat cannot be dissipated. Because the heat is not dissipated, the temperature of the material increases. The increase in temperature will in turn increase the rate at which the oxidation reaction occurs, which in turn will increase the amount of heat generated, and so on. This increase after increase continues until either the heat is dissipated some way [e.g. by melting steel], or the material reaches its ignition temperature and starts to burn. (the same basic process occurs in stored green bio-mass materials such as hay, saw dust, corn cobs, etc. but the heat is generated by the life process of micro-organisms)." http://bifrost.unl.edu/ehs/ChemicalInfo/flamsol.html "

"This scientific principle of a furnace, understood by primitive humans since the bronze age, could potentially destroy the credibility of anyone who forwards and endorses the erroneous theories (e.g., "nuclear" bombs). You are literally playing with fire by promoting such bogus theories. People, for the sake of our country, and out of respect for those who died at the WTC, please do not promote or forward those Urban Legends.

"I am sorry if my words are harsh, but I do not have much patience for people who are either irresponsible for forgetting what they themselves saw, who pretend to understand physical principles that they have not studied or otherwise have no competence in, or who are simply liars who are out to make a reputation by misrepresenting to others what happened on September 11, 2001. Everyone with common sense knows that two commercial air planes hit and burned inside the towers and caused the towers to break and to fall. Mark R. Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl http://billstclair.com/ferran/index.html

http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944

I am aware that there are millions of science-ignorant people and some total morons walking around America babbling about the World Trade Center (and I have tried in vein to address this http://www.zmag.org/interactive/content/display_item.cfm?itemID=3944 ) , but when a "professor" who knows that he has no formal education nor any practical education in the science of chemistry, combustion, nor of metallurgy, nor of the Strength of materials decides to spew his ignorant reckless notions as scientific "FACTS" to the gullible volatile public at a time of crisis, I feel that his reckless conduct warrants extreme and swift punishment. Professor Jones has also misrepresented the significance of the "Law of Entropy" to bolster his false claims. Given the tendancy of this professor's misrepresentations to give aide, comfort, and encouragement to those who have overtly declared Jihad against our pathetic country, (and who must be able to recruit more jihadists just by laughing at our domestic morons) I would be satisfied to see this "professor" tried, convicted, and executed for Treason. He breached a Trust in time of WAR. Jones' reckless remarks will probably kill as many Americans as President Bush's misuse of the word "Crusade" has and will.

I have never heard of a single NYC fireman doubting that a fire of the proportion of those in the towers could destroy such a building that was not designed to withstand such an enormous fire. See, e.g., http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/vallebunoa.html ("We thought 7 World Trade Center was going to fall").

I think it is preposterous for anyone to assume that a tall building or any conventional material or mode of construction can not fall down if you fly a large fuel-laden airplane into it at more than 500 miles per hour.

In summary, we have a moron posing as President, and now we have morons posing as "Professors" too. No wonder that the people of the world increasingly find it necessary to destroy US for their own preservation.

Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
http://www.billstclair.com/ferran


P.S.
Snopes may be a good starting point for information to counter some of the Anti-American 9-11 propaganda (e.g., from the French):

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
by Chainsaw
Wednesday Jul 5th, 2006 8:15 PM
sulfur
The problem is there would have been tons of sulfur rich chemicals, its find proves nothing.
Oh and Aluminum will only burn under certain conditions, and I know what they are Aluminum May have played a key role but it was not thermate or thermite although I am sure that given the right conditions thermite and perhaps thermate could occur naturally!
I have not experimented and produced thermate yet but it is something to look into, I have all the fuels and materials that were at the world trade center here on the farm.
DR. Jones will next find barium in his samples, I bet it is the binder Barium Nitrate in thermate, Really isn't this stuff getting to predictable and boring!
Wonder if after he finds barium he will come up with a sample of Iron, Aluminum Oxide, and magnesium Oxide, from the ignition source of the thermate!
by Mark Ferran BSEE scl JD mcl
( mferran [at] nycap.rr.com ) Wednesday Aug 9th, 2006 9:58 PM
060206-30a.jpg
060206-30a.jpg

Professor Steven Jones of BYU is getting an education in Physics and in Chemistry from us volunteers http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm , but he is still kicking and screaming as we drag him towards the ultimate realization that he has befooled himself and is wrong to the core. So far, he has admitted that "structural steel can fail" because of exposure to ordinary fire, thus recanting his original assertions that "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail."

Steel-frame buildings do fail and have failed because of fire.
See: http://enr.construction.com/images2/2006/02/060206-30A.jpg



A fire in a Madrid steel-frame building collapsed 10-story steel-frame sections of the building --even without a plane crash weakening those sections--, and almost brought down the rest of it, which had to be torn down. “At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F)” ) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html

It is no secret that fire destroys steel-frame buildings. This has been known for more than 100 years. The essay at http://www.cagenweb.com/quarries/articles_and_books/stone_magazine/fire_trap.html by an early American civil engineer of great repute (William Sooy Smith, 1830-1916) explains the known weaknesses of Iron (steel) beams and columns exposed to fire. He notes that the primary mechanism of structural failure in steel buildings is the DESTRUCTIVE FORCE generated in the steel itself when it EXPANDS due to heating by FIRE. He describes the destruction of several steel frame buildings due to the heat of fire, including one in New York city. In view of these examples, there is a warning (or prophesy) by the Fire Chief of the City of New York of the eventual collapse of a very tall steel frame building, (such as the World Trade Center buildings), due to exposure to the heat of fire. His essay is essential reading for anyone who would express or consider an opinion about the likelihood that a steel framed building exposed to fire would be brought down by the heat of fire.

Excerpts:
1) "Witness the Manhattan Savings Bank building, Broadway and Bleeker street, New York, which was destroyed a few weeks ago by the heat generated in the burning of the ... building next to it."

2) "fire ... partly destroyed the Athletic Association building in this city. ... and it is evident that if this heat had continued but a little longer the whole structure would have fallen."

3) "And notably at the burning of the Tribune building in Minneapolis, about three years ago, which resulted in its entire destruction."

"There may be steel buildings in which the fireproofing has been so well done that they will pass through an ordinary fire without such failure. But if the steel becomes even moderately heated its stiffness will be measurably diminished, and the strength of the upright members so reduced as to cause them to bend and yield. This is more likely to occur, as the horizontal beams and girders will at the same time expand (unequally from the different degrees of temperature) and throw the posts out of vertical and into buckling positions. This is the third difficulty. ... The third difficulty, resulting from the expansion and contraction of the metals employed in the construction of tall buildings, may be obviated by protecting these metals absolutely from any considerable change in temperature..."
Chief Bonner, of the fire department of New York, says in reference to the destruction of the Manhattan Bank building:
....We shall have in this city, unless the citizens of New York are warned in time, a calamity by fire which will rend their hearts. ... The heat thrown from a large burning building of any height is immense. ... I am prepared to declare, from my experience, that a building of brick and yellow pine in case of fire is easier to manage, and the contents have more chance of being saved than the modern fire-proof building. In the former structure the fire burns more slowly and has no chance to concentrate its heat as in the iron and steel structure.

Chief Swenie, of the Chicago fire department, is quoted in the essay as follows:

"I think very much as Bonner does," said Fire Marshal Swenie to-day, when his attention was directed to a statement of the chief of the New York fire department to the effect that the modern skyscraper is a veritable firetrap. .... Fire in a room so filled with goods might in very short time gain such headway as to imperil seriously the entire structure by the expansion, warping or twisting of the iron or steel framework.

No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to expand. The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place. At the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. before you know where you are something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.

... It does not take a great amount of heat to cause steel and iron to expand, and when beams and columns begin moving something has got to break. Suppose a fire breaks out in one of these buildings. We work at it from below, and the steel beams expand, the ceiling breaks and the floor above comes down. ...

The [previous] statements of Professor Jones and others that "almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail" are insane distortions of reality and misrepresentations of practical experience of fire-fighters and engineers. That is why Professor Jones has since then acknowedged that he was wrong about that.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jones, Steven"
Sent: Aug 3, 2006 2:59 PM
To: Jon Moseley , 911Issues [at] yahoogroups.com

Subject: RE: Steven Jones' 2nd response to Jon Moseley

I'm not running away at all, but again you haven't read
my papers yet, where I explain that while structural steel can
fail, it cannot result in the COMPLETE, symmetrical and rapid
collapses of the WTC skyscrapers as observed. I also refer to
the peer-reviewed and published paper by Ross Gordon which
reaches the same conclusion, based on detailed energy and
momentum arguments, here:

http://www.journalof911studies.com

Furthermore, in actual fire-endurance tests of WTC floor
assemblies contracted by NIST and performed by Underwriter Lab,
the assemblies did NOT

- no, I stop - you will have to read it in my
papers! Then get back to me.

Steven J

PS - my critiques of the no-plane theories are based on hard
physical evidences, like my critiques of the official theory of
the collapse of the WTC buildings due to a conspiracy of 19
hijackers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Moseley [mailto:ruthercap [at] earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:50 AM
To: Jones, Steven; 911Issues [at] yahoogroups.com
Judy Wood
Subject: RE: Steven Jones' 2nd response to Jon Moseley

WHY ARE YOU RUNNING AWAY FROM THE PROOF THAT YOUR ESSENTIAL
THESIS IS WRONG?

DO YOU ADMIT THAT STRUCTURAL STEEL IN A BUILDING CAN FAIL AT THE
TEMPERATURES FROM AN ORDINARY FIRE?

YES OR NO?

-----Original Message-----
From: "Jones, Steven"
Sent: Aug 3, 2006 2:36 PM
To: Jon Moseley , 911Issues [at] yahoogroups.com
Judy Wood
Subject: RE: Steven Jones' 2nd response to Jon Moseley

...

... in my two papers, ... I address the contention that fires in the
WTC were sufficient to cause weakening and COMPLETE collapse of
these buildings.
...
Steven Jones

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Ferran
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:21 PM
Subject: Collapsing buildings


My quick explanation of the affect of Gravity upon a falling top-of-a-building explains/outlines the mechanisms of the collapse and "fast" descent of the collapsing towers.



Responding to comment made elsewher that "because the fires were not symmetrical, deformation should have resulted in an asymmetrical collapse." This mistakenly assumed that there was a “symmetrical collapse”. Once the columns on one side of the building fail, they cause the failure of the next nearest columns, and so on. This can occur in less than a second, and it will appear from outside that all columns failed at the same "time" or that there was perfect symmetry, but that is not quite correct.



Imagine that the simplified figure below is looking from the side at one floor of the core with five massive columns holding up the massive core of the building above.

____________

I I I I I



Take away the first column on one side (e.g., by airplane impact)

____________

I I I I



And the building might still stand (and it did), but now there is more weight (load) on the second column, and that "more weight" is not merely the same amount of the weight that the first (missing) column used to support, because there is LEVERAGE. Some of the weight that the third, fourth, and fifth columns were carrying is now being carried by the second column, due to LEVERAGE. The cantilever (unsupported end) multiplies the force added to the next nearest column. Because iron is flexible, the fulcrum point and muliplication factor of the leverage is NOT easily calculated, but it is real and postive.



If fire causes expansion (causing buckling, or shortening), distortion (Bucking, shortening) or weakens the second column (strength failure),

____________

I I I

then all the weight of the missing first and second columns is shifted to the remaining three, but the third column absorbs ALL of this shifted weight, PLUS a leverage factor, and the last column may be carrying less of the load than before, or may even be in tension (not supporting any weight of the building at all, but pulling down on it). The fourth column may be in tension or in compression like the last column. The point is, that the moment that the second column fails, the entire load of the building might be pulsed down upon the next (third) column. At that moment, perhaps a fraction of a second after the second column failed, the third column will be crushed (because it may be carrying the entire load of the building above it);

____________

I I

and a fraction of a second after that, the load will shift to the fourth column, and the fourth column will be crushed.

____________

I



When you get to the last column standing, two things can happen: 1) because there is no "leverage" acting on it, it might survive long enough to momentarily act like a pivot or a hinge (as was seen in the tipping of the WTC tower with the antenna)

or 2), because the weight is bearing down or has shifted too erratically, it may fail completely a moment after the fourth column failed (in that case, the whole building core above will appear to drop approximately straight down (as in the second tower).



The illusion of "symmetry" is preserved by the large scale of the falling building, but the only symmetry is in the shape of the building.



The same principles of progressive failure of adjacent columns due to shifting loads apply in three-dimensions, where you have a distribution of columns in an area, but the mathematics of load re-distribution is more complex.



Concerning Professor Steven Jones’ comments on the appearance and rate of the collapse of the WTC towers:



Professor Steven Jones promised me earlier in July that he would respond by July 28 to my note pointing out that: 1) the thinning of steel I-beams in the burning wreckage at ground zero was due to steel burning in air; and 2) the sulfidation of steel occurs naturally whenever steel is exposed to the fumes of any fire burning organic materials, or when otherwise exposed to sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas.

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm



Apparently, Professor Jones finds it easier to pontificate about other matters of which he knows nothing at all, such as for example his recent comment: "while structural steel can fail [due to fire], it cannot result in the COMPLETE, symmetrical and rapid collapses of the WTC skyscrapers as observed". That is baseless nonsense. There is little else for the damaged collapsing top-of-a--building to do but to fall DOWN though the portion standing below it. Professor Jones disregards Newtonian Physics, and fraudulently interjects "The Law of Entropy" into his public discussions of the final descent of the towers.



The typical crackpot claims about the WTC towers falling "fast" and the "law of gravity" are simply testimony proving the total idiocy and unmitigated ignorance of their proponents. When there is nothing available to resist the affect of Gravity (which pulls things DOWN), Gravity takes over.

Newton's first law of motion is often stated as

An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Once the structural integrity of a building is destroyed, for example the columns holding up the top floors fail, there is simply not enough left in the right positions to hold up or to stop the falling portion.



Professor Steven Jones expressly adopted and endorsed an argument made by foreigner Gordon Ross that a "collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond" the height of the column sections (e.g., one floor) that initially failed.



The glaring fallacy of Gordon Ross' analysis is his absurd assumption that the standing columns will reconnect with something substantial in the falling debris that will maximally resist the descent of all of the debris above. Here is one of Ross's statements of his absurd premise:

"Upon impact with the lower section the falling mass would deliver a force which would grow from zero, up to the failure load of the impacted storey columns, over a finite period of time and distance."

Here is the absurd conclusion that Ross's absurd premise leads to:

"The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02 seconds after impact. A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point."

Ross seems to assume a perfectly neat descent and a perfect reconnection of the columns of the falling floors with the standing columns below, something that had no chance of happening.



Because the column sections that failed did not vaporize and disappear instantaneously, they likely imparted some horizontal forces upon the ends of the columns on the top and bottom, making them horizontally displaced as they converged downward upon each other. Even if the top floor columns were displaced only 4 inches in any direction relative to the bottom columns, that would drastically reduce the area of metal-metal contact between them, since they are hollow box columns, not solid bars. Thus, the impact of the top column 4-inches off center with the bottom column would apply a great force to only a small fraction of the cross-sectional area of the box column. If the contact area was reduced to 10%, then, instead of a pressure of 100,000 PSI acting upon the steel column's end, it would impart 1,000,000 psi to a smaller part of it. This increased amount of pressure would result in the tearing or slicing of the metal, not a loading and compression of the entire column to failure. Thus, Gordon's whole premise, that the entire cross-sectional area of the standing columns would somehow become loaded to failure by the falling debris is total nonsense.



The total sum of the area of the "footprint" of each standing core column added up was only a small fraction of the area of the floor-space of the WTC towers or of the core itself, and thus only a small fraction of the falling debris would directly impact/encounter such standing core columns; and that small directly-impacting portion would then find the path of least resistance (around those standing columns), which would be between the standing columns. So, the great majority of the falling debris would fall BETWEEN the standing columns, not directly impacting them on their ends.



There is little likelihood that the standing columns would connect perfectly with any falling debris such that the debris would be capable of imparting a vertical "failure load" upon the whole column. Before that could happen, the falling debris would deflect away horizontally, going towards the path of least resistance. As can be plainly seen in the video tapes, the result of the collision of the falling top floors and the still-standing core was a great horizontal expansion of debris. Thus, the standing columns were pushed sideways and torn off to the horizontal, a direction in which they had virtually no strength nor resistance.



The standing columns remaining below the break floor were probably never again loaded to their full rated capacity, let alone loaded to their failure point. Thus, they simply could not have provided their full rated force to resist or slow the descent of the falling debris from the top floors.



The falling debris does not all neatly stack up on the top ends of the still-standing columns. Most of the debris will fall around the standing columns. Bottom standing columns are designed to support upper COLUMNS, not to support or resist the fall of steel debris falling down between or horizontally crashing against the columns. Similarly, the horizontal bracing and concrete floor between core columns on each floor within the core was not designed to carry let alone stop the fall of thousands of tons of steel and concrete debris falling from 20+ floors above. The horizontal beams between the core columns would simply shear-off of the stronger core columns before the core columns would be significantly re-loaded by the debris falling upon the horizontal beams.



The falling steel debris accumulating between core-columns and impacting the horizontal beams would create a horizontal bursting force/pressure (e.g., seen in videos as the horizontal expansion of the debris at the floor(s) of collision) that would peel the individual upright standing columns sideways off the top of the standing stack as the debris descended. In net, the standing columns of the core below the falling floors/debris presented only a tiny fraction of the vertical resistance to the falling steel debris that the standing columns had originally provided to support the intact columns and structure that they used to support. Because the standing columns provided so much less vertical force to resist the fall of the debris falling AROUND THE COLUMNS, the buildings appeared to fall just a little slower than the free-fall demonstrated by debris that fell outside of the perimeter of the WTC towers. See: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm



The only way for Gordon Ross' analysis to make any practical sense, would be if the floors of the cores were made so strong that they could not only support the static weight of the falling building floors, but also catch and stop the whole mass and perfectly redistribute that impulse force to all the standing columns. The only way to accomplish that would be to make the floor out of a slab of steel about one foot thick, spanning the entire core floor area and redistributing the weight/shock of the falling debris to all the core columns at the same time.



If one such "safe" floor within the core of the WTC tower (e.g., at floor #70) had been formed of solid steel slab (e.g., one foot thick plate), welded solidly to all the core columns, instead of being formed of little horizontal steel-beams and cast concrete, the load of the leading falling debris might have been shock-absorbed (by the standing columns below the steel slab without destroying them) and the mass of debris above that would be deflected horizontally away from the core, thus resulting in a free-standing core section 70 floors tall and stripped of all suspended floor spans. But, it would have left the escape stairways on the floors below relatively intact, preserving the lives of people descending those stairs. However, that "safety" design would also have forced more of the falling debris to expand away horizontally, spreading the falling core debris even farther outside of the footprint of the towers, creating a much larger zone of collateral destruction.



Because there was no slab of solid steel to support, catch, and redistribute the weight of the falling top floor debris, Gordon Ross's analysis is total nonsense. And, Professor Jones' acceptance and endorsement of Ross's obviously flawed analysis is a further indication that Professor Jones is himself defective.




by Neil Slade
( neil [at] neilslade.com ) Thursday Aug 17th, 2006 10:54 PM
You know, there are numerous sites on the web such as http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm cited here, which contain
NO AUTHOR
NO PERSON WILLING TO IDENTIFY SELF AS WEB SITE MANAGER/AUTHOR

I won't even spend 10 seconds reading such a page nor considering it's arguments.

Anonymity makes for crappy credibility.

by gordon ross
Sunday Aug 20th, 2006 4:55 PM
"The glaring fallacy of Gordon Ross’ analysis is his absurd assumption that the standing columns will reconnect with something substantial in the falling debris that will maximally resist the descent of all of the debris above. ” Said Mark.

So an analysis of a mathematical model which assumes that the strength of an entire storey’s columns are totally and instantaneously removed allowing the upper storeys to fall onto the lower storeys is considered absurd because it wouldn’t match up correctly.
Strange that you should consider it absurd that they do not meet up, but fail to even raise an eyebrow about the effective disappearance of one whole storey’s columns.
Strange also that you did not level exactly the same criticism at Dr. Bazant, who was actually the first to use exactly the same mathematical model, almost five years ago.
Also strange that you did not level the same criticism at your friend, Dr. Greening who also used the same model.
But then again, I do not believe that it is the model that you are having trouble with, but rather the inescapable conclusion that the energy balance would have reached exhaustion at an early stage and the collapse would be arrested.
Are you still peddling your theory that the reason the fire was so hot was because the iron caught fire?
For anyone who wishes to make their own mind up the articles in question appear here,

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Anyway it is getting a little chilly round here so I will just go and get another girder to throw on the fire,

Gordon Ross.

by Synonym Finder
Thursday Jun 23rd, 2011 9:00 AM
How about to write some more information about residue. I did't get the whole thought of it.