In the interest of fairness the list to whom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, sent this post it is being sent to The Vigo Examiner as a separate post.It is a long list. (found) I will find the person who sent this information and forward your remarks to him with your address included. Since it was sent out as a forward, I am surprised that the name of the sender was not included in my post.One thing that we do not need is misinformation. That should be left in the hands of our governments. They are so good at it. I can understand the blowtorch effect and the fact that heat rises. And the hotter it gets the faster it rises. Would the air rising from below not be much cooler? And in the shots of the building where the motor went out the other side of the building with most of the fuel, there was a tremendous burn-off shown in the pictures. Is that not the building that collapsed first? One other bothersome item is the reports by firemen and others who claim they heard bombs going off when they were going up and down the stairways. According to at least a few posts the police have stopped the firemen from looking for their lost relatives or buddies. The whole thing smells of a needed crises to help an infiltrated government impose their long-sought New World Order. Regards, Cliff Hume. ********************************** >Subject: WTC: Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F > >Those interested in bringing the truth to light, forward this as far and wide >as possible > > > >11.01.01 >Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F: Government 'explanation' >of WTC atrocity defies physics > > > >And that's that. The jet crashes, as TOP_VIEW has reported from day one, >COULD NOT possibly -- and DID NOT -- cause the total structural failure >and collapse of the WTC towers. > >Why? Well, it's simple. Jet fuel burns at EIGHT HUNDRED degrees >Fahrenheit, and steel melts at TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED degrees Fahrenheit. >No matter HOW MUCH jet fuel there is, it STILL burns at EIGHT HUNDRED >degrees. No matter HOW MUCH jet fuel there is, steel -- last time >reputable scientists CHECKED -- STILL melts at TWENTY-EIGHT HUNDRED >degrees. > >No matter how many times the White House resident tells us Osama bin >Laden "did it" and is the "evil one", the burning fuel from the jet >crashes was TWO THOUSAND degrees TOO COOL, to melt the MASSIVE, behemoth >steel beams of the World Trade Center towers. > >Again: the fires in the Trade Center towers caused by the crashes of two >hijacked jets could not possibly have caused the total structural >failure of the towers. > >SO: If you want to keep on willfully and INTENTIONALLY believing an >UTTER and PROVABLE idiotic LIE -- certainly one of the biggest lies EVER >ever told -- then go right ahead. > >Try to explain to your children and your grandchildren why you >compromised and jeopardized their very existence, by deliberately >ignoring the most simple, PROVABLE scientific truth -- which UTTERLY and >completely invalidates and lays waste to the gigantic tower of lies the >U.S. government has spewed to the ends of the Earth about the >"attack" upon America. > >Considering these scientifically irrefutable FACTS, along with the >thoroughly substantiated and heavily verified report in the European >press that "evil one number one" bin Laden actually met with our CIA a >mere TWO MONTHS before (was he maybe LESS "evil" in July?) he supposedly >masterminded the WTC attack, it's safe to say: Case closed. There is >absolutely no doubt that inconceivably deranged and demonic FedGov >elements were INEXTRICABLY INVOLVED in just about every single stage of >the planning and implementation of the "attack (from within) upon >America" on September 11. > >Clearly, our own government attacked us, and NO ONE ELSE. > >Round up the BushMob. >- - - - - - - - >- - - - - - - - >911: THE TERRORISTS SUSPEND LAWS OF PHYSICS!! >DID THE BUILDINGS FALL... >OR WERE THEY PUSHED? > >I TRIED TO BE PATRIOTIC > >By J. McMichael >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall >through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I listened >to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened. And I worked >at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the remote control >and staring on the flickering images on the TV screen. > >But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of >my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from further >scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second >Millennium mindset. > >But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of >the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the >official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your ignorance. > >Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident: North tower struck 8:45, >collapsed 10:29; South tower struck 9:03, collapsed 9:50 > > >Time Line of Terror >8:45 a.m. >American Airlines Flight 11, Boston to Los Angeles with 92 people >onboard, crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New >York City. > >9:03 a.m. >United Airlines Flight 175, Boston to Los Angeles with 65 people >onboard, flies into the south tower of the World Trade Center. > >9:31 a.m. >Speaking from Florida, President George Bush pledges the United States >will hunt down the guilty parties. > >9:40 a.m. >American Flight 77, en route from Dulles Airport, Washington DC, to Los >Angeles with 64 people onboard, crashes into the Pentagon. > >9:48 a.m. >The U.S. Capitol and the West Wing of the White House are evacuated. > >9:49 a.m. >The Federal Aviation Administration bans all aircraft takeoffs in the >United States. > >9:50 a.m. >South tower of the World Trade Center collapses. > >9:58 a.m. >Emergency operator in Pennsylvania receives a call from a passenger on >United Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco with 45 people onboard, >stating the plane was being hijacked. > >10:00 a.m. >United Flight 93 crashes about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. > >10:29 a.m. >North tower of the World Trade Center collapses. > >11:00 a.m. >New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani orders lower Manhattan evacuated. > >11:40 a.m. >With U.S. military on nuclear alert, Bush taken to Barksdale Air Force >Base in Louisiana. > >1:20 p.m. >Bush boards Air Force One for Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska, >headquarters of the U.S. Strategic Air Command. > >2:51 p.m. >U.S. military deploys missile destroyers and other equipment in New York >and Washington. > >5:20 p.m. >Another World Trade Center building "collapses." > >7:00 p.m. >Bush arrives in Washington. > >8:31 p.m. >Bush addresses the nation, vowing to punish "evil acts." > >source >http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html > > > >Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also >amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that >proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with >acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, >electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these >brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on >the open market. > >Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 >AM, and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black >smoke. We can see pictures of the smoke and flames shooting from the windows. > >Then by 9:03 (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with >the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke >continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would >indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still >burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with >sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen -- or both. > >But by 10:29 AM, the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that >I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing >a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground. > >And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 >minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This >is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower. > >I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire >burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached >1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is >about 99% iron; for melting point of iron, see below > >Iron 26 Fe 55.845(2) >Thermal Properties and temperatures >Melting point [/K]: 1811 [or 1538 C (2800 F)] Boiling point [/K]: 3134 >[or 2861 C (5182 F)] (liquid range: 1323 K) > >source: >http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html > > >I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled >oxygen or forced air can produce. > >And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- >200,000 tons of it (see World Trade Center information for stats). . > >I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: >you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder >parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If >you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to >stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you >can heat up the one part of the object, but the heat will quickly spread >out and the part will cool off the moment you stop. > >When the heat source warms the last cold part of the object, the heat >stops escaping and the point of attention can be warmed. If the north >tower collapse was due to heated steel, why did it take 104 minutes to >reach the critical temperature? (See Time Line of Terror). > >Am I to believe that the fire burned all that time, getting constantly >hotter until it reached melting temperature? Or did it burn hot and >steady throughout until 200,000 tons of steel were heated molten - on >one plane load of jet fuel? (Quantity of steel in WTC) > >Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page > >( How the World Trade Center fell ): > >"Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C - hot enough to melt steel floor >supports." That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th >Century, steel melted at 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 F) > > >Basic Information > >Name: Iron >Symbol: Fe >Atomic Number: 26 >Atomic Mass: 55.845 amu >Melting Point: 1535.0 C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 F) Boiling Point: 2750.0 C >(3023.15 K, 4982.0 F) Number of Protons/Electrons: 26 >Number of Neutrons: 30 >Classification: Transition Metal >Crystal Structure: Cubic >Density @ 293 K: 7.86 g/cm3 >Color: Silvery > >table source: >http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html), > >but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F). > >This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the >temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of >course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark >skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, and steel and >relevant temperatures discussed at Metrum. > >But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and >the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, >"Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself >to be misquoted in a global publication? At 04:50 PM 11/3/01 +0000, you wrote: >Dear Mr. Hume: > >Where on Earth did you get your information that steel melts at >2800F? It looses it strength and becomes plastic at about 800, is >"red hot" at around a 1000F, and flows as white hot liquid at around >1100. Jet fuel is perfectly capable of reaching such temperatures, >and with oxygen taken in from a chimney effect, can reach "blow >torch" temperatures. > >Sincerely, > >Oral Deckard >Editor >Vigo Examiner **************************** Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Jim Wade" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cliff Hume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:06:25 -0600 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Cliff, I am not one of those who is afraid to think the unthinkable when it comes to the capacity of central government to involve itself in what most would find to be unthinkable acts. I find no pleasure in thinking such thoughts, but I won't be at all surprised to have future revelations regarding such complicity. At the same time, I have a problem with this content of this post. Although I am not an engineer, as an appraiser I do have some knowledge of structural design. It seems to me that the conclusions reached in the piece ignores the reality that an 800 degree temperature would be enough to warp and rack a steel structure (I've seen it happen in smaller building fires). Such displacement of critical members in lower floors of the building could easily compromise their integrity and capacity to support the weight above. It seems reasonable to me that such a situation could result in the collapse of a floor impacted by the fire which in turn could produce the cascade failure we witnessed. For me, the jury is still out on this one. Time may tell, but I don't see the temperature issue as being iron-clad evidence that something more than the fire caused the collapse. Far more significant to me was the collapse itself. Demolition teams spend a great deal of time attempting to get a building to fall straight down by imploding on itself. I suppose it is possible for that to happen as a matter of chance from an airplane crashing into a building, but the odds against it seem phenomenal. The point of impact should, by simple reasoning, have suffered the greatest damage and structural weakening. One would have expected for the structure to fail on that side of the building causing the upper floors to lean in the direction of the impact rather than falling straight down. Again, I'm no professional in this regard, but the above seems reasonable to me. Jim **************** Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Dr. Byron Weeks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Cliff Hume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 09:13:19 -0700 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 To: You folks in the craven controlled media. At least read this below. My best bet is that the Globalist faction of the CIA arranged with the military and some Arab hirelings to set up this World Trade Center atrocity as a way to create a crisis that will destroy the constitution and place all Americans under the dictatorship disguised as the "Homeland Security" Office. I am a physician, scholar, and veteran of Korea and Vietnam. I fought for this country even when I did not believe in the fight. (Two no-win wars!) I revere the American Republic, but it is essentially gone, replaced with a socialist welfare state by the leftist and rightist cabals who wish to have total power over the people. WHY HAVE YOU NOT OPPOSED THEM? Col. Byron Weeks, MD ----- Original Message ----- From: Cliff Hume <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 1:23 AM Subject: WTC: Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F *************************************** Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: "Beaver Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Beaver Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Cliff Hume" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Fw: Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 10:40:01 -0600 Organization: Cole Publications X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 ----- Original Message ----- From: Carl F. Worden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Beaver Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; American Patriot Friends Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 8:14 AM Subject: Re: Steel melts at 2800F, jet fuel burns at 800F > I am really tired of having my time wasted by pseudo-scientists who want to > jam-fit a square peg (federal government conspiracy) into the round hole of > the World Trade Center attack. > > This particular piece is most insulting, because it suggests the only thing > that burned after the strikes was jet fuel. That silly level of thought > would also insist that the only thing burning after you light a barbecue is > the lighter fluid. > > The ruins are still burning even as I write this, but the jet fuel was > burned out almost before the buildings collapsed. Gee, was there anything > in those buildings that might have caught fire? You know, like paper and > plastics? Do ya think? > > And do ya think just maybe the steel never had to actually reach melting > temperature? The collapse happened right on camera before everyone's eyes, > and it happened exactly the same way both times, with the floors all > pancake-collapsing under the weight of the floors above the strike zone, > straight down, and accelerating as the rubble reached the ground. > > Carl F. Worden > >
