9-11 WTC fires and collapses were a lie, steel melts at 1500°C – David Conner
Hello this is John Robles, I'm speaking with David Conner, he is a former design engineer and an expert on the events of 9-11. This is Part 1 of a longer interview.
Robles: Hello David, how are you?
Connor: I'm doing fine man.
Robles: And nice to be speaking with you. Can you tell us a little bit about your theory about 9-11 and particularly with the structural put it clear with the structural part?
Connor: OK, there is a lot of jargon floating around as far as I can see and read,and very often the term comes up 'the path ofmaximum resistance'. Now, unless you are actually technically orientated, this is quite a thing to handle. And whatthat means is: these buildings collapse through the path of maximum resistance, they collapsed vertically.
Now, if you get a piece of paper, A4 paper, and roll it upto a cylinderaround about a centimeter in diameter;you put it on one end, press it down with your hand on the other – there is a lot of resistance. If you lay it on its side and just crush it with your hand, it disintegrates. So, if you put the piece of paper on its end rolled up, and you press it down – that is the path of maximum resistance, yes?
Now as far as I know, no buildings have before 9-11 and after 9-11 collapsed vertically, except thethree Trade Centers buildings. World Trade Centers 1 and 2 collapsed within an hour and a half of each other after being hit by two airplanes. I believe the smoking gun is World Trade 7, which wasn't hit by airplane. It had a diesel fire in its basement and also they are saying, and it collapsed in about 9 seconds or 7 seconds I believe.
And it went to free fall within 3 seconds of that collapse. That is extraordinary, how could it happen? And there is also so many things that have turned up which over the last few years that makes me feel that this is just a really horrible lie.
I just went onthe Internet, just before you phoned up, and I asked what was the question - the question I asked was: 'What temperature does steel melt at?' I got some real great guy from Jefferson Lab, who I suspect has never been to a steelworks,and he said that steel melts at around about 1510°C. I thought it was 1600°C actually, but it doesn't matter. He said: 'It starts to lose its stiffness at around about 538°C'.
Well actually it’s not an answer that would have any viability in explaining the collapse of World Trade Center 1 and 2. Steel is a great conductor of heat, so if there was that amount of heat introduced from these airplanes crash into that steel, it would have gone, it would have been transferred quite quickly away from the center of where the fires were and what have you.
There are so many films on the Internet, where you see red molten steel pouring outside of the buildings. Office fires and jet fuels cannot achieve that sort of melting point.
If you think of a steel works once again, howcould you equate asteel works with what was going on in World Trade Centers 1 and 2. So I believe that there was some sort of explosive devices that knocked the integrity out of that structure and that allowed it to fall vertically.
Just one point, you probably have read, and it is something which I've picked up on from Richard Gage, he has made out that about five or six months before 9/11, there was an extensive modification made to the lift systems in both 1 and 2, Trade Centers 1 and 2. Perfect cover – OK.
So then, another thing about steel melting: if you go around some steel works there’s one in Port Talbot in in South Wales if it's still open, they used to move the molten steel in torpedoes mounted on railways,and the steel would be transported from one section of the steel works to the other. So it would still contain hot steel and whole journey used to take about 20 or 30 minutes I think. And thosetorpedoes never melted you know.
The raw steel, molten steel was coming out of the furnaces, put into thesetorpedoes, and they were transported to the rolling mills you see. And so those things got really red hot and glowed, and what have you, and they didn't lose their integrity, their strength, their strength integrity if you can say that, I think you can, yes. But anyway, so that is the general gist of what I'm saying is why I'm very interested in this lie that is being perpetuated about the World Trade Center.
Robles: Now there was reports of molten steel that was found up to four or five days after the buildings collapsed in like subbasement 4 and 5. How hot would have the steel had to have been to still been molten after three or four days?
Connor: OK then, I saw pictures of that. It is really horrible, straggly stuff. If steel has lost its form, it has reached its melting point, there is no question about that. There were no jack hammers or there were no steel hammers floating around, it was just gravity. The steel must have reached at least 1500°C. There is no question.
Robles: Now, what could cause that kind of heat?
Connor: Thermite, there’s another name for it as well. There is something other than thermite, and it is used in joining railway lines together and it takes about half a second for temperature of 2200°C to be reached and then therails are joined together. And it takes about half a second. In 19 … in the year of 2010 … now hang on … in the year 2000 that was, it was a known way of joining metal rails together, no question. I think what is being suggested from the debris from the World Trade Center 1 and 2, there was this nano-thermite, I think he is called.
Robles: You are right.
Connor: This nano-thermite, and it’s a deadly piece of the equipment, and in the wrong hands- steel could be melted in half a second – no question. Bingo!
Robles: What can you comment about the cement being pulverized into dust? I mean, that didn't seem normal.
Connor: No, indeed, I quite agree. It seemed to me absolutely un-normal. Well the other example I can give you is that, I've seen many films now on the Internet about buildings being blown up, you know being blown up for various reasons, and normally when concrete’s compressed it doesn't explode into dust, it takes an explosive device to turn it to dust. To pursue to the miniature particles that were floating around New York that day.
Robles: So what could have caused that? I've heard the term "directed energy weapons".
Connor: As far as I've read from the experts, and a lot of experts out there were saying this nano-thermite is a prime candidate for the source of the destruction of World Trade Center 1, 2 and 7.
Robles: So regarding the speed with which the buildings collapsed, and for me it is the most obvious problem with the whole affair. You take a building, now these building were designed to withstand the impact I think of up to 3 or 4 aircraft one after the other. And even a two-year old child could tell you, now youused the rolled piece of paper example, I'd like to think of if you took a pencil, and you stood it on one end and you hit it on the side, even a small child would tell you – it's going to fall over. It is not going to collapse into itself, right?
Connor: Indeed, indeed, yes.
Robles: So a hit on this side – the buildingscollapse into themselves. And then there was all these … what about the speed with which they collapsed? And I think it’s a given, everybody knows now but it was filmed there was all this blasts before they collapsed.
Connor: Indeed I think that’s, I think that’s absolutely fascinating. And the steel, the red steel coming out below the part of building that already collapsed a few floors down. Molten steel being … it is like a foundry, a steel works, you know, fueled by jet.
Robles: What is the maximum temperature that jet fuel could reach?
Connor: I believe it is about 700°C.I have read that the office fires and the jet fuel couldn't reach more than 600°C. And with all the films I have seen the jet fuel was disispregated in the first half second or second of the hit on the trade centers themselves. It just exploded, you know, it just went out. And so, I think what they are trying to tell us is that office fires that resulted from that collision were the source, the heat sources for the melting of the steel and the subsequent collapse of the three buildings, which I think is just baloney I think.
Robles: I've been in a steel foundry, you've been in one and you know the heat, and there is no way of burning office furniture, diesel fuel or something like that could produce so much heat.
Connor: I think that is exactly my point, yes.
Robles: Why do you think all of the wreckage was moved, all the steel was taken over to New Jersey and then it was like there was like smelted and it disappeared?
Connor: Well you see, you are more familiar with American laws than I am. That was absolutely out of order, completely. A crime scene was absolutely cleared up and anything was taken away. The evidence was taken away, transported to India or somewhere, that was areally extraordinary thing to happen.
Robles:Yes, of course, of course.
Connor: Absolutely ridiculous. They said one vertical column buckledand the rest came down, went into free fall. John, that cannot happen – it is as simple as that. I cannot give you a definition of just how sound those buildings were. I even remember watching them from JFK on my flight back to Europe from New York, andlooking at those two magnificent buildings from JFK and the wind and the storms, and the hurricanes they had withstood without any problems. And then all of a sudden two planes crashinto them and one hour and a half later they all collapse. It's not plausible.
Robles: Yeah, it is not. And we saw when they impact.I mean, it was there live, the second one, had the buildings were so weak, I think immediately at point of impact there would have been cement flying off and pieces of building coming off and everything and the buildings remained pretty much intact. It was obvious at the time,after what, an hourright,it was pretty obvious that the buildings were going to keep standing.
Connor: Yeah, there are two points if I may raise on that one. The guy that bought the lease from the New York Port Authority, six months before that happened, was Larry Silverstein I think his name. Well, you see, if you see that crook on the television, on the TV, and how he was heard saying "World Trade 7 we’ve got to pull it". There is only one way that can be interpreted.
Robles: Yes he said "we gave the order to pull".
Connor: I’ve heard that argument many times. It’s a term that’s used in the demolition industry to say: 'ok then, bring it down'.
Robles: Did you know John Kerry said the same thing?
Connor: Did he?
Robles: Yeah, he was asked what was going on at the time or something, and he said this on television, he said well there was a decision made to pull.
Robles: John Kerry who is now the Secretary of State of the United States, and he was a fellow Skull and Bones man with George Bush at Yale.
Connor: Yeah, but he was a Democrat.
Robles: It doesn't matter, there is Democrats, Republicans. They’re all - it is one party now.
Connor: OK, there is just another thing that has come up, there’s one little piece, Idon’t know … you've probably seen it as well. The BBC put out a news report25 minutes before World Trade 7 collapsed, from a very unfortunately poor woman reporter, who was saying: 'Well we’ve just got news in', she says 'where World Trade 7 has just collapsed'. And behind her was World Trade 7 that hadn't collapsed, you see. As she went to ground – it's very hard to get any news about her, they put her on ice or something, I’m not quite sure what’s happened there.
You were listening to an interview with David Conner. He is a former design engineer and a researcher into the events of 9/11. Thank you very much for listening and I wish you the best, wherever you may be. Stay with us.