FW: ST911 – November 11th Newsletter

From: Andrew Johnson

Date: 2007-11-13 10:35:15

Subject: November 11th NewsletterAll,An interesting blog by George Washington (ie: Alex Floum) suggested to methat, by taking up one issue at a time, it may be possible for thesenewsletters to contribute to better understanding some of the crucial issues of 9/11.  In this article, Floum talks about the fires and molten metal atGround Zero and the millions of gallons of water that were dumped ontop of them.  Think about the quality of this argument in relation to the few brief comments posted about it.  Which side to you think hasthe better of it?  And remember:  the laws of nature cannot be violatedand cannot be changed just for this event.JimP.S.  David Ray Griffin has asked me to clarify that his reasons for leaving our society did not include any concerns on his part withresearch on the kinds of issues that have become so controversialwithin the community, such as the use of unconventional methods todestroy the WTC or the possibility of video fakery in depicting the planes hitting the Twin Towers.  While I take it he does have apreference for private over public discussion of these issues, he haswritten me that that was not one of his reasons for departing.  Iapparently misunderstood and for that I want to apologize. Why Didn’t Millions of Gallons of Water Put Out the Ground Zero Fires?georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-didnt-millions-of-gallons-of-water.html GEORGE WASHINGTON’S BLOGTUESDAY, NOVEMBER 06, 20074 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within thefirst 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department ofEnergy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories: Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in thefire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater,between 9/11 and 9/21 ….The spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amountsof water were hosed on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:”firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn’t even begin to imagine how much water was pumped inthere,” said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, thelargest fire department union. “It was like you were creating a giant lake.”This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became dueto the constant spraying:[Click on the link above to the original article to view the photo–Ed.]Moreover, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.And yet, the world trade center fire was “the longest-burningstructural fire in history”. The temperatures were so high that therewas molten metal at ground zero for months after 9/11. Why didn’t the enormous quantities of water and fire-retardant sprayedat Ground Zero put out the fires? How could fires and molten metalhave burned for months, when fires from normal office and building materials and available sources of oxygen should have been doused byall of the water?Dr. Steven Jones gives one possibility:”Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water”.(for proof of the fact that thermite contains its own oxygen supplyand burns under water, see this web page).[Again, please click on the original article link above to view this page–Ed.] How could a thermite reactions continue for long periods of time? Dr.Jones says:”…in the hot molten mixture in the rubble, one would expect ongoingthermite reactions from aluminum (e.g., from building cladding) and various metal oxides (such as rust) present — not just fromunconsumed thermite charges …. molten aluminum in contact with ironoxide (rust) or other metal oxides will react (slowly) over a longperiod of time — you don’t need uncombusted thermite to get this reaction to go [for long periods of time].” (11/6/07 email from Dr.Jones to author)Admittedly, Ground Zero is a large area: 16 acres. However, the hotspots were very localized, at least within days of 9/11, as the following thermal image shows:[Again click on link above–Ed.]The majority of water should have been sprayed at the hottest spots inan attempt to put out the fires.Yet, after five days of cooling and despite being sprayed with massive amounts of water, the surface hot spots were still above the meltingpoint of aluminum. How is that possible?In addition, the sheer weight of all of the material which fell onGround Zero should also have helped put out the fires. 60 Minutes and Mt. Sinai Medical Center both reported that the destruction of theTwin Towers dumped at least a million tons of pulverized material,primarily concrete, onto Ground Zero and the surrounding areas (forexample, see these photos). While a good proportion of the dust blew away from Ground Zero, that still leaves perhaps hundreds of thousandsof tons of dust at ground zero itself.Virtually the entire site became covered with dust and dirt. As onerescue worker put it:”Everything was one color, some of it was wet, some of it was dry -don’t forget they hosed the site down constantly . . . the longer wewere there and the deeper we got into the pile the debris was almostlike topsoil. Everything was covered with gray dust and dirt.”What happens when you pour dirt onto a campfire? It goes out.Water is also heavy, as anyone who has picked up a 5-gallon waterbottle can attest (it weighs 8.33 pounds per gallon). Because 4million gallons of water fell on Ground Zero within the first 10 days,that means that some 33 million pounds, or more than 14,000 tons, ofwater were added within a week and a half to the hundreds of thousands of tons of dust at ground zero. The spraying continued for months,which means that hundreds of thousands of tons of water would havebeen dumped on Ground Zero over the next couple of months.Thus, in addition to the fire-dousing property of water, it seems that the enormous weight of dust and water should have also helped tosmother any normal fires. There simply could not have been enoughoxygen to sustain the fires and molten metal for months. And the hightech fire-retardants should have put out any fires the water and dust didn’t.The extreme difficulty in drowning or smothering the fires for monthssupports the evidence for controlled demolition provided by the factthat temperatures at the Trade Centers were hotter than they could have been due to mere office fires in the first place.POSTED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON AT 9:43 AM4 COMMENTS:James B. said…There simply could not have been enough oxygen to sustain the firesand molten metal for months.And thermite burning for months is a better explanation?The truthburn guys burned 80 lbs of thermite, which lasted about 15seconds. So please calculate how much thermite would be needed to keep it burning for 2 months.4:27 PMJames B. said…LOL yeah, OK, so how much thermite was there if there were “pockets”of thermite waiting around to be ignited occasionally over periods of months? And furthermore, if there was so much thermite, and itsignition was so unreliable that “substantial portions” of it was notconsumed in the alleged demolition, then why was it not found by the thousands of firemen, police officers, and assorted rescue workerspouring over ground zero. Surely not all of it could have been ignitedpurely by chance.6:31 PMAnonymous said…Holy Cow! Four Million Gallons?? But how could that be?AE911Truth’s site says there was “tons of molten metal” in the rubble.But when water contacts molten metal, you get a steam explosion:Wikipedia: “A dangerous steam explosion can be created when liquid water encounters hot, molten metal. As the water explodes into steam,it splashes the burning hot liquid metal along with it, causing anextreme risk of severe burns to anyone located nearby and creating afire hazard.” So, my question is, how could there have been molten metal if so muchwater was sprayed? And what about all the rain the following week?Where’s the reports of steam explosions?Where’s the reports of severe burns from splattering molten metal? The thermal map in GW’s blog comes from an official government site,but is it authentic? Should we automatically trust a “government”image, or should we look further?Turns out the hot spot in that image coincides with a damp, empty hole in the ground. Check the info here and this picture.10:46 PMAnonymous said…Topsoil? How did all that topsoil get there?Well, we have numerous FEMA photographs of topsoil dirt beingtrucked-in to Ground Zero and piled on. Why would they be dumping dirt all over Ground Zero? Does moleculardissociation have anything to do with it?See here for the many FEMA photos of dirt being trucked-in to Ground Zero.[Again, please click on link above to view these photos–Ed.]

Related articles...

Comments are closed.