Thursday, Sept 11, 2008
One article consisting of five short paragraphs in the London Independent informs us that on this seventh anniversary of 9/11 all the remaining unanswered questions about the collapse of the World Trade Center towers can be “explained away”.
Yes, that’s correct, structural engineers, scientists, professors, congress members, victims’ families, first responders, intelligence officials and all the other researchers out there who have poured over the collapse of the twin towers for the last 2 556.69539 days, you may all stop reading, put down your pens and turn off your computers because Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency has all the answers.
Mr Dudarev can explain why jet fuel fires burning in isolated pockets for minutes caused two of the world’s tallest steel buildings to completely collapse into their own footprints at freefall speed, pulverizing concrete and leaving flowing underground rivers of molten metal lasting for weeks.
And the answer is…
“Unusual magnetic forces”… IDIOTS, how could you not have worked it out?
Yes, that’s correct “Unusual magnetic forces” or “Umf” for short caused the towers to fall down.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Here is the article in full:
Scientists can finally explain why the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, despite the temperature of the fires being well below the 1,500C melting point of the steel girders holding up the buildings.
The discovery that unusual magnetic forces within the girders made them weak at temperatures of about 500C explains away the conspiracy theories that have spread like wildfire since the disaster.
Sergei Dudarev, of the UK Atomic Energy Agency, found that steel loses its strength above 500C because its molecules undergo a physical transition from one state to another due to magnetic fluctuations. “The steel didn’t melt, it just became soft. It is an unusual state and the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough to cause it because the thermal insulation was knocked off the girders through the impact with the aircraft,” he said.
“Understanding how materials behave means we can find the right ‘medicine’ to make steel stronger at high temperatures… and if our work can be used for other applications, such as safeguarding tall buildings against disasters, so much the better,” he said.
If this dismissive excuse for an article were not so deeply offensive it would be utterly hilarious.
We have previously pointed to the innumerable number of buildings that have suffered roaring fires across the majority of their floors for hours and remained standing. Seemingly the steel beams in these buildings were not subjected to the same “unusual magnetic forces”.
Furthermore, a far more extensive fire occurred in WTC 1 itself, prior to enhanced fireproofing of the building, on February 13, 1975. The fire burned at much higher temperatures for three hours and spread over six floors, including 65% of the 11th floor and the building core, yet it caused no significant damage to the steel structure and no trusses had to be replaced. There were no “unusual magnetic forces” present on that day.
Early tests conducted on recovered steel beams from the WTC showed that they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers.
Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC towers, sent a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) about this.
“As I’m sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing – that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year.
I’m aware of UL’s attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
Ryan was later fired for continually questioning the official story of the World Trade Center collapse.
Furthermore, referring to the collpases, the original NIST report concluded that “the existing condition of the fireproofing prior to aircraft impact and the fireproofing thickness on the WTC floor system did not play a significant role”.
Mr Dudarev’s declaration that “The steel didn’t melt” is in direct contradiction to the voluminous amounts of evidence concerning the presence of molten steel underneath both towers and building seven which fell later in the day. Steel doesn’t begin to melt until it reaches temperatures of between 1500 and 2000C, and it does not literally flow like lava until it gets towards 3000C, much hotter than the temperature jet fuel, or in the case of building seven, office material fires burn at.
Building Seven itself, which was not hit by a plane, fell totally into its own footprint in around six seconds after localized fires burned on a select few floors. Was the building subject to “unusual magnetic forces”? Not according to NIST, which states in its latest report that it was the first steel structure in history to suffer total collapse as a result of the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion”.
However, the problem many researchers have with this “new phenomenon”, also described by NIST as an “extraordinary event” that had never happened before in the history of building collapses, is that it seemed to have been roundly predicted by news stations and ground zero workers a hour or more in advance of it actually occurring.
Proclaiming “unusual magnetic forces”, “extraordinary events” and “new phenomenons” smacks of a desperate attempt to ventilate the authority of the official story, when in reality these ludicrous claims, the latest in a long line of changing explanations and contradictory accounts, only make the government sanctioned 9/11 account look more untrustworthy than ever before.
This article was posted: Thursday, September 11, 2008 at 11:47 am