pomeroo
23rd January 2007, 01:26 PM
Having antagonized far too many people here with my political views, I think it's time to get back to conspiracy theories. Here is an e-mail exchange between Dr. Frank Greening and Steven Jones:
Dear Dr. Jones,
I have recently read the latest version of your paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" as published in Volume 3 of the Journal of 911 Studies (Dated September 2006). On page 13 of this paper you refer to an article I posted on 911myths.com in which I suggest that oxygen cylinders on UA Flight 175 may have discharged prior to the collapse of WTC 2 and caused an enhancement of the pre-existing fires.
Unfortunately you have completely misrepresented what I wrote in my 911myths article as I will now demonstrate:
Here, is what you, Dr. Jones, say about my article:
"F. Greening's latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the ogygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC 2. Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e. this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F - while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel....... (etc)"
Here, by way of comparison, is what I actually said in the conclusion to my 911myths article:
"Based on the calculated trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2, the forward cabin area of the aircraft ploughed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building. Thus the 3200-liter oxygen cylinder carried in the crew compartment of Flight 175 came to rest precisely in the area where the bright yellow glow was to later appear. As many videos show, about 50 minutes after impact, fires were well established in localized areas of the northeast corner of WTC 2 – these fires would have gradually heated the entire forward fuselage to temperatures in excess of 200° C. We therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires."
Thus I wish to point out the following:
1. I make no mention of any melting of the structural steel.
2. I only propose that oxygen released by on-board O2 cylinders would have fed the pre-existing fires that were burning in and around floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of WTC 2 in the minutes before this building collapsed.
It is you, Dr. Jones, that has deliberately misconstrued what I actually wrote by bringing in your comments on molten steel, (implying these comments were made by me), with the obvious intention of supporting your own thermate hypothesis while denigrating my original and scientifically sound ideas.
Therefore, based on this simple fact, I demand that you retract what you have written about my article on oxygen enhancement of the WTC 2 fires and issue an apology to me for the misrepresentation of what I actually wrote.
And I trust that you will not misrepresent my writings or put words into my mouth ever again.
Sincerely,
Dr. F. R. Greening
Frank,
I am working from home this morning, and have read your letter.
You quote from your 911myths paper the following: "We therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires."
It is possible that I misunderstood your meaning, so please explain -- what material is it that provided the "intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC2" if not hot steel? We can go from there as I do wish to understand your meaning. Of course, I wrote months ago, before the last set of peer reviews which took place in the Aug-Sept time frame (206) -- so following your response, I should then go to my notes which I can access at my "new" shared office.
Best Wishes,
Steven Jones
Dear Dr. Jones,
First of all let me re-emphasize that I do NOT mention molten steel
in the addendum to my aluminum article. The addendum is on the topic of
oxygen enhanced fires in WTC 2. And I believe that what I wrote on that
topic should be very clear to anyone who actually reads it!
That is why I am questioning your attribution of the formation of
"molten steel" in WTC 2 to
anything I said in my article. And why I am particularly objecting to you
saying: "This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he (i.e.
Greening),
suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in
the building...."
Where do I suggest this?
So, let's go over what I wrote one more time and see if you will
finally acknowledge your misrepresentation of my hypothesis.
This hypothesis is an attempt to explain the flare-up of the fires in
WTC 2 prior to its collapse as exemplified by the phrase "intense yellow
glow."
I think we can at least agree that there was something glowing with a
bright yellow color INSIDE WTC 2 in the minutes before its collapse.
I see this glow as evidence of a high temperature, oxygen-rich, fire.
That is all!
Now if you wish to argue that such a yellow glow is due to molten steel,
that is YOUR opinion NOT MINE. Obviously you can say that YOU think the
yellow glow is coming from molten steel, and yet you falsely attribute such
an idea
to me as if this was stated by
me in my article.
This is clearly a serious misrepresentation on your part and I urge you
to issue an apology for this and to retract or correct your paper.
If you care to re-read my "Oxygen Enhanced Fires" addendum you will have
to agree that I say NOTHING, either directly or indirectly, about molten
steel.
In fact, any OBJECTIVE reading of my addendum shows that I am postulating
that on board oxygen cylinders and oxygen generators would have eventually
been heated to beyond their known upper temperature limits. At this
point they would have failed and rapidly discharged their contents into the
pre-existing fires that we see burning at the NE corner of the 80th to 82nd
floors of WTC 2.
I think, even though you are NOT a chemist (I am!), you are probably
familiar with the effects of adding pure oxygen to a pre-existing fire!
Now since I am postulating that these sources of PURE oxygen were INSIDE
the fuselage of the Boeing 767, and the fires we see on
the 80th to 82nd floors of WTC 2 are in the area where the aircraft is
presumed to have come to rest, it follows that at least some of the observed
fires were
burning INSIDE the aircraft wreckage.
By way of support for this suggestion let me note the following
information on the fate of Flights 11 and 175 which can be found in the NIST
Report on WTC 1 & 2: NIST have analyzed the trajectories of the impacting
aircraft and conclude that over 90 % of the aircraft debris from Flight AA
11 (excluding fuel) remained in WTC 1 after impact, and 72 % of Flight UA
175 debris (excluding fuel) remained in WTC 2 after the impact. More
specifically, NIST estimate that 75,500 kg of aircraft debris came to rest
on floors 93, 94, 95 and 96 in the case of WTC 1 and 59,500 kg of debris
lodged on floors 79, 80, 81 and 82 of WTC 2.
It follows that, quite apart from the jet fuel, there
were plenty of combusible materials inside the aircraft including, plastic
mouldings, electrical insulation, luggage, carpeting, upholstery, and
regrettably the passengers themselves, located close to the NE corner of
floors 80 -82 of WTC 2. In addition, it is also very probable that furniture
and other combustible items on the impacted floors of WTC 2 were "ploughed"
into the NE corner of the building by the impacting aircraft
and provided additional fuel to the fires.
After 50 minutes of burning it is quite possible that the fires in WTC 2
were
waning and becoming oxygen starved. However prolonged heating of the on-
board oxygen cylinders would eventually burst the rupture discs and we now
have a
new source of PURE OXYGEN. This would stimulate the pre-existing fires and
generate very
high temperatures.
So here is what I actually say in my article:
"NIST report that the Boeing 767s involved in the 9-11 impacts on the WTC
Towers carried about 100 canisters per aircraft; each canister capable of
12-minute oxygen generation for a total of 5000 liters of O2 per aircraft;
the canisters were located in compartments above the passenger seats.
Researcher D. Blake, in a study of the response of aircraft oxygen
generators to elevated temperatures, (See report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/35),
found that the lowest temperature for self-activation of a generator
canister was 315° C. Other tests conducted by Blake showed that more than 80
% of generator canisters heated to 370° C activated during an hour of
heating.
Based on the experimental data presented above it appears quite probable
that a significant portion of the oxygen carried by the two aircraft that
hit the Twin Towers was released prior to the collapse of these buildings.
Experimental data also show that gas cylinders undergo acute release of
oxygen at much lower temperatures than the chemical generators onboard the
aircraft. Furthermore, the chemical generators release oxygen in 50-liter
increments involving many locations in the aircraft cabin, while the bottled
gas supply would be released in one 3200-liter pulse at the front-end of the
aircraft fuselage where the cylinder is wall-mounted.
In one of the tests described by Marker, 600 liters of oxygen was released
into a cargo container where a small fire had been deliberately set. The
initial discharge of oxygen caused a very violent combustion reaction that
ripped open, and subsequently destroyed, the container. Other data from fire
tests in oxygen-enriched environments show that cellulose-based materials
such as wood, cardboard and paper, burn almost four times faster in air
enriched to 40 vol % O2. This increased combustion rate induces a comparable
increase in the heat flux from the burning material and results in flame
temperatures as much as 600° C higher than the flame for the same material
burning in air - thus flame temperatures up to 1500° C are possible."
So that is my suggestion for the flare-up of the WTC 2 fires. (This probably
also happened in WTC 1 but well inside the building, out of view from the
outside, since the aircraft hit the middle of this tower).
You ask what was burning with a yellow glow at this point?
Well, I have already answered that!
And as for the molten metal that was seen flowing from WTC 2?
I do not discuss this at all in my addendum, but NIST and other researchers
have suggested it was aluminum....
Dr. F. R. Greening
Dear Frank,
Do you mind if I use this exchange to start a new thread on the JREF
forum, in the "Conspiracy Theories" section? I'm curious to see if Jones
will continue corresponding with you, as the outcome doesn't look promising
for him.
Best Regards,
Ron
Dear Ron,
Yes! By all means, I would be happy to see other people's reactions to
Jones' comments.
He has done this to me before and at that time he consistently failed to
address my points. This back and forth of e-mails went on until I just gave
up talking to him. (The man is impossible, really!). So here we go again,
but I will not let him off the hook this time.........
It's obvious to me where Jones is coming from: He believes the molten
metal pouring from WTC 2 can ONLY be explained by pre-planted
thermite/thermate near the 80th floor of WTC 2. Hence he is DESPERATE to
shut down any alternative suggestions. Better yet, he wants to ridicule my
suggestion to discredit me, thereby "killing two birds with one stone". You
can see he deliberately does a lousy job of describing my original
hypothesis; then he twists my words to suit his purpose and finally
dismisses me and my ideas as totally dumb!
Well, nice try Dr. Jones, but let's see what John Q. Public has to say on
this one....
Cheers, Frank
Dear Dr. Jones,
I have recently read the latest version of your paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" as published in Volume 3 of the Journal of 911 Studies (Dated September 2006). On page 13 of this paper you refer to an article I posted on 911myths.com in which I suggest that oxygen cylinders on UA Flight 175 may have discharged prior to the collapse of WTC 2 and caused an enhancement of the pre-existing fires.
Unfortunately you have completely misrepresented what I wrote in my 911myths article as I will now demonstrate:
Here, is what you, Dr. Jones, say about my article:
"F. Greening's latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the ogygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC 2. Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e. this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F - while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel....... (etc)"
Here, by way of comparison, is what I actually said in the conclusion to my 911myths article:
"Based on the calculated trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2, the forward cabin area of the aircraft ploughed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building. Thus the 3200-liter oxygen cylinder carried in the crew compartment of Flight 175 came to rest precisely in the area where the bright yellow glow was to later appear. As many videos show, about 50 minutes after impact, fires were well established in localized areas of the northeast corner of WTC 2 – these fires would have gradually heated the entire forward fuselage to temperatures in excess of 200° C. We therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires."
Thus I wish to point out the following:
1. I make no mention of any melting of the structural steel.
2. I only propose that oxygen released by on-board O2 cylinders would have fed the pre-existing fires that were burning in and around floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of WTC 2 in the minutes before this building collapsed.
It is you, Dr. Jones, that has deliberately misconstrued what I actually wrote by bringing in your comments on molten steel, (implying these comments were made by me), with the obvious intention of supporting your own thermate hypothesis while denigrating my original and scientifically sound ideas.
Therefore, based on this simple fact, I demand that you retract what you have written about my article on oxygen enhancement of the WTC 2 fires and issue an apology to me for the misrepresentation of what I actually wrote.
And I trust that you will not misrepresent my writings or put words into my mouth ever again.
Sincerely,
Dr. F. R. Greening
Frank,
I am working from home this morning, and have read your letter.
You quote from your 911myths paper the following: "We therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires."
It is possible that I misunderstood your meaning, so please explain -- what material is it that provided the "intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC2" if not hot steel? We can go from there as I do wish to understand your meaning. Of course, I wrote months ago, before the last set of peer reviews which took place in the Aug-Sept time frame (206) -- so following your response, I should then go to my notes which I can access at my "new" shared office.
Best Wishes,
Steven Jones
Dear Dr. Jones,
First of all let me re-emphasize that I do NOT mention molten steel
in the addendum to my aluminum article. The addendum is on the topic of
oxygen enhanced fires in WTC 2. And I believe that what I wrote on that
topic should be very clear to anyone who actually reads it!
That is why I am questioning your attribution of the formation of
"molten steel" in WTC 2 to
anything I said in my article. And why I am particularly objecting to you
saying: "This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he (i.e.
Greening),
suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in
the building...."
Where do I suggest this?
So, let's go over what I wrote one more time and see if you will
finally acknowledge your misrepresentation of my hypothesis.
This hypothesis is an attempt to explain the flare-up of the fires in
WTC 2 prior to its collapse as exemplified by the phrase "intense yellow
glow."
I think we can at least agree that there was something glowing with a
bright yellow color INSIDE WTC 2 in the minutes before its collapse.
I see this glow as evidence of a high temperature, oxygen-rich, fire.
That is all!
Now if you wish to argue that such a yellow glow is due to molten steel,
that is YOUR opinion NOT MINE. Obviously you can say that YOU think the
yellow glow is coming from molten steel, and yet you falsely attribute such
an idea
to me as if this was stated by
me in my article.
This is clearly a serious misrepresentation on your part and I urge you
to issue an apology for this and to retract or correct your paper.
If you care to re-read my "Oxygen Enhanced Fires" addendum you will have
to agree that I say NOTHING, either directly or indirectly, about molten
steel.
In fact, any OBJECTIVE reading of my addendum shows that I am postulating
that on board oxygen cylinders and oxygen generators would have eventually
been heated to beyond their known upper temperature limits. At this
point they would have failed and rapidly discharged their contents into the
pre-existing fires that we see burning at the NE corner of the 80th to 82nd
floors of WTC 2.
I think, even though you are NOT a chemist (I am!), you are probably
familiar with the effects of adding pure oxygen to a pre-existing fire!
Now since I am postulating that these sources of PURE oxygen were INSIDE
the fuselage of the Boeing 767, and the fires we see on
the 80th to 82nd floors of WTC 2 are in the area where the aircraft is
presumed to have come to rest, it follows that at least some of the observed
fires were
burning INSIDE the aircraft wreckage.
By way of support for this suggestion let me note the following
information on the fate of Flights 11 and 175 which can be found in the NIST
Report on WTC 1 & 2: NIST have analyzed the trajectories of the impacting
aircraft and conclude that over 90 % of the aircraft debris from Flight AA
11 (excluding fuel) remained in WTC 1 after impact, and 72 % of Flight UA
175 debris (excluding fuel) remained in WTC 2 after the impact. More
specifically, NIST estimate that 75,500 kg of aircraft debris came to rest
on floors 93, 94, 95 and 96 in the case of WTC 1 and 59,500 kg of debris
lodged on floors 79, 80, 81 and 82 of WTC 2.
It follows that, quite apart from the jet fuel, there
were plenty of combusible materials inside the aircraft including, plastic
mouldings, electrical insulation, luggage, carpeting, upholstery, and
regrettably the passengers themselves, located close to the NE corner of
floors 80 -82 of WTC 2. In addition, it is also very probable that furniture
and other combustible items on the impacted floors of WTC 2 were "ploughed"
into the NE corner of the building by the impacting aircraft
and provided additional fuel to the fires.
After 50 minutes of burning it is quite possible that the fires in WTC 2
were
waning and becoming oxygen starved. However prolonged heating of the on-
board oxygen cylinders would eventually burst the rupture discs and we now
have a
new source of PURE OXYGEN. This would stimulate the pre-existing fires and
generate very
high temperatures.
So here is what I actually say in my article:
"NIST report that the Boeing 767s involved in the 9-11 impacts on the WTC
Towers carried about 100 canisters per aircraft; each canister capable of
12-minute oxygen generation for a total of 5000 liters of O2 per aircraft;
the canisters were located in compartments above the passenger seats.
Researcher D. Blake, in a study of the response of aircraft oxygen
generators to elevated temperatures, (See report No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN03/35),
found that the lowest temperature for self-activation of a generator
canister was 315° C. Other tests conducted by Blake showed that more than 80
% of generator canisters heated to 370° C activated during an hour of
heating.
Based on the experimental data presented above it appears quite probable
that a significant portion of the oxygen carried by the two aircraft that
hit the Twin Towers was released prior to the collapse of these buildings.
Experimental data also show that gas cylinders undergo acute release of
oxygen at much lower temperatures than the chemical generators onboard the
aircraft. Furthermore, the chemical generators release oxygen in 50-liter
increments involving many locations in the aircraft cabin, while the bottled
gas supply would be released in one 3200-liter pulse at the front-end of the
aircraft fuselage where the cylinder is wall-mounted.
In one of the tests described by Marker, 600 liters of oxygen was released
into a cargo container where a small fire had been deliberately set. The
initial discharge of oxygen caused a very violent combustion reaction that
ripped open, and subsequently destroyed, the container. Other data from fire
tests in oxygen-enriched environments show that cellulose-based materials
such as wood, cardboard and paper, burn almost four times faster in air
enriched to 40 vol % O2. This increased combustion rate induces a comparable
increase in the heat flux from the burning material and results in flame
temperatures as much as 600° C higher than the flame for the same material
burning in air - thus flame temperatures up to 1500° C are possible."
So that is my suggestion for the flare-up of the WTC 2 fires. (This probably
also happened in WTC 1 but well inside the building, out of view from the
outside, since the aircraft hit the middle of this tower).
You ask what was burning with a yellow glow at this point?
Well, I have already answered that!
And as for the molten metal that was seen flowing from WTC 2?
I do not discuss this at all in my addendum, but NIST and other researchers
have suggested it was aluminum....
Dr. F. R. Greening
Dear Frank,
Do you mind if I use this exchange to start a new thread on the JREF
forum, in the "Conspiracy Theories" section? I'm curious to see if Jones
will continue corresponding with you, as the outcome doesn't look promising
for him.
Best Regards,
Ron
Dear Ron,
Yes! By all means, I would be happy to see other people's reactions to
Jones' comments.
He has done this to me before and at that time he consistently failed to
address my points. This back and forth of e-mails went on until I just gave
up talking to him. (The man is impossible, really!). So here we go again,
but I will not let him off the hook this time.........
It's obvious to me where Jones is coming from: He believes the molten
metal pouring from WTC 2 can ONLY be explained by pre-planted
thermite/thermate near the 80th floor of WTC 2. Hence he is DESPERATE to
shut down any alternative suggestions. Better yet, he wants to ridicule my
suggestion to discredit me, thereby "killing two birds with one stone". You
can see he deliberately does a lousy job of describing my original
hypothesis; then he twists my words to suit his purpose and finally
dismisses me and my ideas as totally dumb!
Well, nice try Dr. Jones, but let's see what John Q. Public has to say on
this one....
Cheers, Frank