FEMA 403, APPENDIX C

FEMA 403, APPENDIX C

Click to access fema403_apc.pdf

Forensic Metallurgy

Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA’s volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA’s report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1  

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused “intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.” The New York Times described this as “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” 2   WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.

FEMA’s investigators inferred that a “liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur” formed during a “hot corrosion attack on the steel.” The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it “susceptible to erosion.” Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.

The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.

liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

Thermite Use as an Explanation

The “deep mystery” of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson.

THE BEHAVIOUR OF MULTI-STORY STEEL FRAMED BULDINGS IN FIRE

ACE Elevator Company
9/11 Questions and Research

How could explosives be planted in the WTC?

Ace is the trump card to win a new 9/11 investigation

By Rick Shaddock, ANETA Writing Team
 with thanks to Dr. Crockett Grabbe (PhD, Physics, CalTech)

Although we do not know exactly how explosives could have been planted in the World Trade Center prior to 9/11, without detection, we do know two things for sure. Other possible explanations were not considered in the 9/11 Commission or NIST Reports. Key people were not even mentioned in the final reports.

The possibility of controlled demolition was not seriously considered in the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT).  There were workers with unfettered access to parts of the builds that were perfect for the planting of explosives, such as in the elevators shafts next to the vertical support columns, and above the ceiling panels next to the horizontal beams.   There were also fireproofing renovation workers.

Dr. Niels Harrit has estimated that it would take “tons” of explosives to demolish the buildings.  Demolition experts such as Tom Sullivan have said that it would be quite easy to plant them, if a group had access to the elevator shafts, next to the core columns.

Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends.  Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports.  Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project.  Nor were the fireproofing workers.  (See video)

The words “Ace elevator” or “A.C.E.” (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although “elevator” appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, “Securacom” (renamed “Stratesec” after 9/11), are not found either.   If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in.  The building owner is also key.  The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor. http://911Experiments.com/reports.

With the assistance of Frank Lowy, Paul Eisenberg, and Ronald Lauder, Larry the N.Y. Port Authority turned over the management to Silverstein Properties.  He hired the firm Kroll for security.

Kevin Ryan has well researched who had access to the WTC towers in his article. http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

According to Dennis Cimino, interviewed on Dr. James Fetzer‘s show, there were other fake sounding names on the list of renovation contractors working on the World Trade Center. 

This report will focus on ACE.

ACE got the WTC contract, the biggest elevator project in history, There was an article “Drive to the Top” in the trade magazine Elevator World about the ACE project.

Elevator modernization would be the perfect cover for the planting of explosives. Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolition Inc., said that the elevator shafts, next to the load bearing columns, would be the perfect place.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio: n/41-articles/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html

NEOCT supporters may say “people would have seen A.C.E. Elevator planting explosives in the shafts”. But building occupants, except for A.C.E. workers and StrateSec security, could not look in the elevator shafts. As an experiment you can do, just try to get permission to look in the shafts. I could not even look in one that I partly own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJFBi5Zgj9E

A.C.E. Elevator Company went bankrupt in 2006. How could ACE go bankrupt, if they were skilled enough to get the largest contract in history? Presumably they got paid, because Larry Silverstein was fully insured, received over $4 billion, and there are no records of ACE suing Larry.  The owner was Ronald A. Baamonde, a millionaire who was well paid, and had a mansion after 2001 with a swimming pool.  This supports the hypothesis that Ace Elevator was a “front company” created for the purpose of planting explosives, with just enough background to sound credible.

Some NEOCT supporters may say: “ACE is still in business. So there is nothing suspicious about them”. But that is not true. http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/115931_152_opinion.pdf

Click to access wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf

7 thoughts on “FEMA 403, APPENDIX C

  1. A eutectic system from the Greek “εύ” and “τήξις” is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of any of the constituents.

    What we see in the FEMA appendex C is direct evidence of thermite in eutectic effects the steel samples studied.

    9-11- NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel
    Lawyers Committee for 9/11

    Follow
    Read about the Lawyers’ Committee FBI Lawsuit & Grand Jury Petition here http://lcfor911.org

    Dr John Gross is Associate Director for Structures Research for the National Fire Research Laboratory at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), USA.

    Dr. Gross was the lead author of the flawed NIST report on why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on 9-11. Dr. Gross denies existence of molten steel at the WTC.

    In 2007, Gross was invited to speak about the WTC destruction at the University of Texas at Austin. In the Q & A session, he was questioned about the existence of molten steel at the World Trade Center and the collapse of WTC Building 7. Whilst denying any knowledge of molten steel at the site, Dr Gross made the surprise admission that the NIST investigators didn’t need to do an analysis of the physical collapse of the three buildings because “the video evidence is clear”.

    Please help with a donation if you can, this legal work is expensive
    https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4MNAJTY6GPJM2&source=url

    \\][//

    Like

  2. Behavior of Steel-framed Buildings in a Fire
    Khalifa S. Al-Jabri*

    5. Overall Frame Behavior during a Fire
    The Cardington frame tests showed that the composite
    frame suffered from considerable deformation without
    any form of collapse (Fig. 14), even though the unprotected
    beams reached temperatures of up to 1,100o
    C. At this
    temperature level, BS5950: Part 8 indicates that only 3%
    of the member’s design strength remains. The results of
    the experiment on the Cardington frame demonstrated
    with no doubt the major contribution of the composite
    floor to the survival of the frame in a fire. The floor
    performed very well in all the tests, which supports the
    results of previous small-scale tests (Al-Jabri et al., 1999)
    that showed that this type of floor system has good
    inherent fire resistance. Results of analytical studies
    conducted on the Cardington frame tests (Gillie et al.,
    2001; Gillie et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2002; and O’Connor
    et al., 2003) confirmed that the effects of thermal
    expansion dominated the response of the structure and
    that the material degradation and the gravity loading were
    of secondary importance. It was also found that at extreme
    temperatures, the significant load-carrying mechanism was
    the tensile membrane action in the reinforcement mesh
    and that gravity loading can influence the magnitude of
    the tensile forces produced. The results also suggested
    that one method of helping maintain structural integrity in
    composite structures during extreme fires is to ensure that
    a sufficient degree of ductile reinforcement is present in
    the concrete floor slabs. Columns were found to be more
    critical than beams and will need protection in multi-story
    buildings. The behavior of joints during cooling due to
    restraint to thermal expansion has to be further investigated.
    The survival of steel-framed structures from the severe
    fire conditions experienced in the Cardington project or in
    buildings subjected to real fire accidents raises a number
    of fundamental issues as to whether or not current design
    methods that were based on isolated members tests reflect
    the true behavior of structures in a fire. The results of
    these tests confirmed that current fire engineering design
    methods are too conservative. A new design method has
    been developed (Newman et al., 2000) that takes into
    account the inherent fire resistance of steel-framed members in fire conditions. This method incorporates the
    beneficial effects of a composite slab and beam systems
    on the survival time of steel-framed structures in a fire.
    6. Conclusions
    This paper examined the effects of fires on the behavior
    of multi-story steel-framed buildings. It can be concluded
    that, even in the context of the structural fire engineering
    approach of modern design codes, predictions of behavior
    based on furnace tests or numerical modeling of isolated
    members are unreliable. The behavior of the members
    within a continuous, compartmented structure is very
    different from the behavior of isolated members. Structural
    continuity, restraint to thermal expansion provided by the
    adjacent members, the beam-to-column joints, and the
    tensile membrane action of the composite slab have
    demonstrated a significant positive influence on the
    bevahior of the entire structure in the event of a fire. Data
    from the Cardington fire tests and the subsequent
    experimental and analytical studies provide fundamental
    information that is very important for researchers studying
    the performance of steel-framed buildings in a fire for
    many years to come so as to develop new design approaches
    that take into account the interaction between structural
    members in a fire. The developments that have already
    taken place in the past few years have been very
    significant in understanding the reality of structural
    behavior in a fire, which will undoubtedly lead to the
    emergence of new rational fire engineering design
    methods that may allow us to construct safer, more
    effective, and more efficient fire-resistant buildings in the
    future.

    Click to access The_Behaviour_of_Multi-storey_Steel_Framed_Buildings_in_fire.pdf


    \\][//

    Like

  3. Gravity is a given in Newton’s first three laws of motion:

    In the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it.

    In the second law, the force on an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration.

    In the third law, when two objects interact, they apply forces to each other of equal magnitude and opposite direction.

    Under the first law, gravity is ALWAYS applying its force on objects within the frame of planet Earth.

    The seond law is in force when the structure above is free to fall on the structure below.

    The third law comes into play when the falling structure meets the inert structure below,

    The forces at play for destruction would be grinding and crushising of materials as they meet.

    The upper structure is ‘crushing down’

    The lower portion is ‘crushing up’

    \\][//

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: