Well, it seems like the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are bumping heads. I am not taking anything away from Judy Woods' work. I just feel that she is doing 1 of 3 things with her latest open letter to Steve Jones. One, she is making a honest mistake. Two, she is deliberately trying to debunk some of Steve Jones paper to HELP his argument. Three, she could be trying to draw attention away from the significance of Professor Jones paper. Unfortunately, I happen to believe the latter is what is going to happen. Not sure what her intentions where though....
Let me dive into why I would say that. The title of the letter/paper is "Aluminum Glows" Which right off the bat tells me what she wants to prove. And that is that "Aluminum Glows". Since I have been following this movement pretty close, I am wondering why Judy would make it sound like, Steve Jones said "aluminum does not glow". When in fact, he has repeatedly said the exact opposite.
Professor Jones has said aluminum will glow, but at extreme temperatures. So, if it was aluminum, it would of had to stay under extreme temperatures until it poured out of the tower, to keep the red hot "glowing" appearance. Some people have suggested that the plane crash could of created "valleys" in the floor that acted like a "pot" that held this "molten aluminum". But that is another debate in itself.
Now, after hearing todays interview(Thu., August 10, 2006 http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html ) of Steve Jones, I did some google image searches, with the words "molten aluminum" and "pouring aluminum". I turned up hundreds of photos and even came across a few home made videos.
Some show aluminum with the "appearance" of red hot and glowing, but after hours of examining photos and videos, I know exactly what Steve Jones was/is trying to say about these 2 photos that Judy references in here letter.
OK, the first thing Jones tried to point out, was the "molten metal" on the ground. The reason I call it "molten metal", is because I agree with Steve Jones and don't know what it is, but I do not believe it is "aluminum". I'll explain why.
This next picture shows what aluminum looks like, when it is on the ground, or a box of sand in this case.
Again, you can not look at aluminum that is in or on a red hot container/surface(like what Judy did). There are plenty of photos that show what I am talking about. Here is a short 12 second video that shows what molten aluminum looks like as it is being poured.
Don't look at the fire, or inside the pot. Look at the molten aluminum that is "flowing" ...it is not "bright orange".
Now, I could of ended my research there and been happy. But I decided to look for a place that showed multiple different types of molten metals. Here is what I came up with.
After examining these pictures, you can get a idea of the color difference between something that is "glowing and silvery" versus "bright orange"..
Now, I wanted to address the other picture that Judy referenced. It is a bit deceiving because the aluminum is not "flowing" and is inside a "container". What troubles me the most is, that the "container" is a actual furnace! Of course a furnace is going to give off a glow.....
If you browse around the same site, they show other furnaces that are letting off a bright orange glow. Does that mean aluminum is making the furnace glow?
I am suggesting that the fire(or heat source) in the furnace is what is letting off such a strong "glow".
Here is a example of what I mean about a furnace contributing to the "glow". The first picture shows what the aluminum looks like while it is inside the furnace, and the second picture shows the molten aluminum flowing out of the very same furnace...
I am no expert, but a simple experiment would probably verify what Jones is saying. He makes it VERY CLEAR that it has to be "daylight conditions", "flowing" and of course "it" has to be aluminum
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #1 on Aug 11, 2006, 1:31pm »
Quote:
Here is a letter that Frank Greening emailed me when asked about this same discussion. The funny thing is, I never once mentioned "Steve Jones". As a matter of fact, I was responding directly to one of his articles posted on a "myth" website. Which said that this "molten metal" was most likely "aluminum" and had photos showing exactly what he was referring to....
Now, read what he had to say after I pointed out that aluminum is much more silvery.I want you take note on the "bold" statement. This clearly means they are starting to realize they're mistake..
Prof. Thomas W. Eagar of MIT refused to even look at Jones' paper and said there is no evidence of molten metal pouring from the WTC.
Prof. Zdenek P. Bazant of Northwestern University submitted his fire-induced collapse theory to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) two days after 9-11. Asked if he would review Jones's paper, Bazant also refused, "I have seen Jones's fiction before. If you want my private opinion, it is nothing but sensationalism," he said. "His purported refutation of my analysis is baseless."
Asked to simply look at five photos showing the cascading molten metal and core columns, which appear to have been cut with thermite, Bazant responded, "I do not have time."
Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, an Iranian-born professor at Berkeley, who was a member of the ASCE team studying the WTC collapse, also refused to look at Jones's paper.
"I will not be able to find time to review the material that you have sent me," said Astaneh-Asl.
Perhaps the molten metal was iron, not aluminum: but consider this:
An interesting feature of the videos and still photographs of this event is the bright yellow glow inside WTC 2 from what appears to be the source of the molten metal. The color and intensity of this glowing ball shows that something was burning at a very high temperature - perhaps as high as 1100° C. Such a temperature is well beyond the 800 - 900° range of flame temperatures attainable in typical solid or liquid hydrocarbon-fuelled fires. This has led some researchers to invoke the inevitable " pre-placed thermite incendiaries" as the cause of the bright yellow glow. However, rather than jump to this conclusion, we offer below an alternative, less-conspiratorial, explanation of this phenomenon:
Information available on U.S. FAA websites, and confirmed in the NIST NCSTAR 1-5 report, indicate that the Boeing 767 aircraft involved in the 9-11 impacts on the WTC Towers carried a number of oxygen cylinders and oxygen generators. A NASA report by T. L. Reynolds, (No. NASA/CR-2001-210903, issued in May 2001), discusses Onboard Oxygen Gas Generating Systems, or OBOGS, and other sources of breathable oxygen on aircraft:
"Oxygen systems, as they are currently designed for use on commercial transport aircraft, include passenger oxygen for use in the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure (provided by either compressed oxygen or solid chemical oxygen generators) and gaseous oxygen for use by the flight deck crew. There is also portable gaseous oxygen available for medical use and for protective breathing equipment. The use of oxygen on commercial aircraft, required by FAA regulations, does pose a potential fire safety hazard because of the extremely high gas combustion temperatures that can be produced by combustible materials burning in either pure or oxygen-enriched air environments. This is true of any oxygen system in any environment."
The standard oxygen cylinder carried on all U.S. commercial aircraft contains 3200 liters of O2 stored at 1850 psi when full. Details of the over-pressure relief of these cylinders are provided in a FAA report by T. R. Marker et al., (No. DOT/FAA/AR-TN98/29):
"Different types of pressure relief devices are used for storing breathable oxygen. There are two types of rupturing relief valves, a frangible disc that will fail under excessive pressure (typically 2500 psi) and a thermal disc that will fail when the temperature exceeds 165°F or 225°F, depending on the type. The rupture disc pressure relief device is the only type used on gaseous oxygen cylinders for crew and passenger breathing systems on commercial transport aircraft... Ironically, the rupture disc type pressure relief devices pose a more serious concern in a fire environment because, with these relief devices, it is possible for the entire contents of the oxygen cylinder to be discharged at elevated temperatures."
Marker's report describes studies showing that rupture disc failure occurs within 15 minutes for cylinders exposed to temperatures as low as 200° C.
The standard chemical oxygen generator used in the OBOGS on commercial aircraft consists of a small metal canister equipped with a spring-loaded striker. When activated, a "candle" of sodium chlorate and additives such as barium peroxide undergoes spontaneous thermal decomposition releasing oxygen gas. The OBOGS units installed on most Boeing aircraft contain about 250 grams of NaClO3 per canister that generate about 50 liters of O2 in 12 minutes - an amount of oxygen considered sufficient to supply two passengers during an emergency descent.
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.
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.
These fires would have been hot enough to melt iron, especially in the presence of chlorine and hydrochloric acid vapors from burning PVC............
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #2 on Aug 15, 2006, 3:01pm »
Quote:
The following post is what Judy had to say about my original post
B Real states:
"I am not taking anything away from Judy Woods' work. I just feel that she is doing 1 of 3 things with her latest open letter to Steve Jones. One, she is making a honest mistake. Two, she is deliberately trying to debunk some of Steve Jones paper to HELP his argument. Three, she could be trying to draw attention away from the significance of Professor Jones paper. On fortunately, I happen to believe the latter is what is going to happen. Not sure what her intentions where though...."
My response:
The author fails to recognize another possibility, which is that Steven Jones is incorrect.
B Real states,
"OK, the first thing Jones tried to point out, was the "molten metal" on the ground. The reason I call it "molten metal", is because I agree with Steve Jones and don't know what it is, but I do not believe it is "aluminum". I'll explain why."
Myresponse:
B Real is discussing what is on the ground. Let's not be distracted. The discussion was about flowing molten aluminum. Steven Jones said that flowing aluminum doesn't glow brightly enough to see in daylight conditions. As we can see from the pictures above (which were also shown with the comment by B Real) that the aluminum is indeed glowing.
Conclusion: Flowing (molten) aluminum glows in daylight conditions.
During the last 20 minutes of Jim Fetzer's radio show (10 Aug 2006), Professor Jones said that he does not believe that it was aluminum in the textbook pictures. It would behoove him to offer proof for his (seemingly reckless) charge that the textbook authors and publisher deceived their readers. (The full show is here.)
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #3 on Aug 15, 2006, 3:24pm »
OK
Lets get this discussion under way.
Now, what I did this morning is, I started to re-examine what I convinced myself of. I hate to say it, but I still feel the same way. Your putting to much weight into those 2 photos. Let me explain why..
I found the SAME EXACT picture on a different book published by the same exact guy...
That book is specifically about iron. Now, I am not suggesting that the author is lying or anything...But I am open to the possibility that he uses a few "universal" photos in all of his books. Just to give the reader a visual of what he is talking about.
Where as you are taking his photo and using it as "evidence" that it is aluminum.
Where as I could use your same argument with the SAME EXACT picture and tell you that it is iron because the book says so..
And say something rude like.. "It would behoove you to offer proof for this (seemingly reckless) charge that the textbook authors and publisher deceived their readers..."
But we all know, the textbook is not trying to deceive anybody...The textbook is not about the "color" of aluminum while it is flowing. So the pictures they used served the purpose they where there for, to give a visualization of what he was writing about...
I have started a few threads in metal working forums about this topic. I will wait to see what I come up with and post some of the responses I get.
I am not saying you're wrong. But in the same breath, I am not willing to go against what I have concluded..And that is, that those photos are not "molten aluminum" flowing..
Here is a photo of molten aluminum from the same exact guy.
Notice how that aluminum is not in a red hot container..Looks pretty silvery to me..
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #4 on Aug 16, 2006, 12:01pm »
I feel like I am talking to myself on a discussion board But I do know some people are reading it, so I have decided to give a small update on where I stand after another day.
I emailed Stephen D.Chastain(The author of these books) yesterday. So I am just waiting on a response, but like I said, I started up a few discussion on metal working forums. Here are a few responses I have got so far.
Quote:
Hi Brian, "Aluminum is highly reflective to radiant energy, including visible light and heat. Consequently, it does not assume a dark red color at 1200F just prior to melting, as does steel. The lack of color change makes it difficult to judge when the metal is approaching the molten state during welding."
Quote:
I am having trouble with the "photo of Bright Orange Molten Aluminum". That looks like a cupola furnace and they are used for cast iron, not aluminum.
Be that as it may, you probably know that Aluminum melts around 1200 F. It gets an orange tint around 1400F - 1450F which is a good pouring temperature. I see the orange tint almost every time I do a pour -but I've never seen it as bright as this color.
Quote:
Brian
I skimmed some of those photos and what I think you see is an orange/red glow radiating from the containers/crucibles that are holding the Aluminum. You may see some reflection of that color on the molten aluminum itself, kinda like looking at a mirror.
Quote:
Now you're getting to where I am, thinking that might be a picture of something other than molten aluminum. I wasn't going to boldly say that it definitively wasn't aluminum, but that it just didn't look like aluminum to me.
You also have to understand, I was presenting these photos as "molten aluminum". I have a hunch that if I walk up to any knowledgeable metal worker, he would indeed say "That is a cupola furnace for iron, so that is iron flowing" without thinking twice..
So after I finished reading those responses. I decided to go back here to the source of these photos.
There are a total of 5 pictures on that page. Here are the other 3, we wont bother with the other 2, since we know good and well what they look like.
Now, do you notice anything different about these 3 photos from the other 2? I know I can see 1 major diffrence...
The furnaces are different! Isn't that amazing? In a book that is specifically talking about a "Tilting Furnace" the author decided to mix in 2 pictures of a "Cupola Furnace"...
This doesn't conclude anything but it should show Judy that she should not accuse people of being "reckless" without making sure she is correct. Had she wrote Stephen D.Chastain before going public with this, we could of avoided all this and Professor Jones wouldn't be under attack by people that should be supporting him...
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #6 on Aug 16, 2006, 5:29pm »
Well, I just got off the phone with Stephen D.Chastain (the person who took these 2 pictures)
And low and behold, it is IRON. I can now safely say, I was right all a long. Mr. Chastain said that the website where Judy got the photos from is WRONG. Those photos should be in the iron section. He said he would be glad to respond to Judy if she emails or calls him. He also said that he is sorry for the confusion, if we wanted to see what molten aluminum looks like, to look at the cover of "Metal Casting Vol.2" and I have a picture of that above..
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #8 on Aug 18, 2006, 4:03pm »
Thanks for all your research, Brian. Can you post Judy's photos here, since her paper is gone now?
My thoughts re: Greening and O2 tanks:
1. No plane hit WTC 7, so this explanation would not apply there. Greening still has to explain the molten metal pool and high-temp sulfidation (FEMA appendix C) observed at WTC 7.
2. Have any other buildings with fires (which occur frequently) shown oxygen fires that then melt structural steel? E.g., in hospitals where oxygen tanks are kept. Or in fire tests with O2 tanks involved. Is there any empirical evidence supporting Greening's hypothesis? I doubt it. Suspect it goes the other way -- fires in hospitals, but no melted steel. Can we gather any data here? Always thinking of real experiments vs. hypothetical objections!
3. The reason to doubt such steel melting (in large quantities) is that steel frames conduct heat away from the fire source, so it is difficult to build up enough heat to melt structural steel.
4. The tanks should have burst as the plane hit.
5. What is the PROBABILITY that the O2 tanks survived the hit but then caused super-fires that were able to melt large quantities of structural steel -- at 2800 F -- and have that steel then flow out of the building at the corner where it is seen minutes before the collapse of the entire structure? Greening does not address these questions, but appears satisfied with "it MIGHT happen, so I'm done."
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #9 on Aug 25, 2006, 4:38am »
Aren't most of these details being argued over largely irrelevant given the evidence of molten iron itself at the site of the WTC complex?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the preliminary work that Dr. Steven Jones has done from two separate molten metal samples clearly shows that the previously molten metal is, indeed, iron.
I'm anticipating the full report, but I'll work with what I believe are the preliminary results.
Iron's melting point is roughly ~2800 F, so if these two independent samples clearly show that the iron was previously molten, then there obviously needs to be a mechanism for the iron to become molten and raised to the required temperatures exceeding 2800 F. Jetfuel fire could not account for this, nor can diesel fuel. Thermite is a possibility.
Arguing over molten aluminum does no good whatsoever when we have clear proof of a substance that results from temperatures that are only seen in specific kinds of reactions. We should certainly make sure that our facts are solid, however.
Furthermore, the pictures above, from what I understand, ARE molten iron and not aluminum.
Re: Glowing Molten Aluminum Discussion « Reply #10 on Aug 29, 2006, 8:12pm »
Quote:
Aren't most of these details being argued over largely irrelevant given the evidence of molten iron itself at the site of the WTC complex?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the preliminary work that Dr. Steven Jones has done from two separate molten metal samples clearly shows that the previously molten metal is, indeed, iron.
I'm anticipating the full report, but I'll work with what I believe are the preliminary results.
Iron's melting point is roughly ~2800 F, so if these two independent samples clearly show that the iron was previously molten, then there obviously needs to be a mechanism for the iron to become molten and raised to the required temperatures exceeding 2800 F. Jetfuel fire could not account for this, nor can diesel fuel. Thermite is a possibility.
Arguing over molten aluminum does no good whatsoever when we have clear proof of a substance that results from temperatures that are only seen in specific kinds of reactions. We should certainly make sure that our facts are solid, however.
Furthermore, the pictures above, from what I understand, ARE molten iron and not aluminum.
It looks like you missed the whole point of this discussion. Now, I want to say, I totally agree with you about the iron and that we need a explanation HOW iron became "molten" at the WTC disaster(indicated by 2 different samples, from 2 different sources)..
But, in response to why we are arguing over aluminum, it is very important that we filter out these photos that people are CLAIMING to be aluminum.
The whole point of this discussion was because Judy Wood posted pictures of IRON and said it was ALUMINUM. She tried to say that "molten aluminum" can look like "molten iron" in daylight conditions , which is completely FALSE.
Why all this talk of STRUCTURAL STEEL Melting? There are all kinds of metals in an office, think about it. Also, while there probably isn't any iron in a 767,(or is there?), there are all kinds of alloys other than Aluminum. (which has been sufficiently ruled out as the source of the stuff pouring out ) But I'm still stumped: Is Mr. Jones suggesting that thermite was strategicaly placed all over the place in people's offices on certain floors and then planes were crashed into JUST those floors? How many floors? And wouldn't the impact tend to screw up any triggering devices? Or they were triggered by the fires? And fill me in on just exactly why the towers had to be completely destroyed, as opposed to simply having a pair of 767 jets slammed into them?
Why all this talk of STRUCTURAL STEEL Melting? There are all kinds of metals in an office, think about it.
We have thought about it. Have you? There was 1 hour before that "molten metal" started to pour out of the South Tower. If you notice, it is a substantial amount. There is no explanation for there to be anything molten accept aluminum, anything else would not melt in the temperatures of the "jet fuel" fires.
Quote:
Also, while there probably isn't any iron in a 767,(or is there?), there are all kinds of alloys other than Aluminum. (which has been sufficiently ruled out as the source of the stuff pouring out )
Its the color that is so telling...
Quote:
But I'm still stumped: Is Mr. Jones suggesting that thermite was strategicaly placed all over the place in people's offices on certain floors and then planes were crashed into JUST those floors?
I don't want to speak for Professor Jones, you should do yourself a favor, and read his paper.
I will speak for myself and say I believe there where thermite charges strategically placed all over the building, not just at the impact zones. I would assume the corners where one of the "strategic" locations.
Quote:
How many floors?
Would require a real investigation to answer that question. I can only speculate...I have never wired a building for controlled demolition.
Quote:
And wouldn't the impact tend to screw up any triggering devices?
That is the point. I believe one of the devices where knocked loose. Otherwise we wouldn't of saw it pour out of the building. If you are asking if the "jet fuel" fires would initiate it, initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials.
Quote:
Or they were triggered by the fires?
Remote
Quote:
And fill me in on just exactly why the towers had to be completely destroyed, as opposed to simply having a pair of 767 jets slammed into them?
The difference of about 2500 deaths. Plus the buildings would not have fell from the impacts alone. Also, don't forget about WTC 7 which was not hit by a jet, but had a global collapse...Every building that was apart of the World Trade Center Complex, either totally collapsed, or was so badly damaged, that they had to be demolished.
Thats quite the coincidence, wouldn't you say? 2 jets took out 7 buildings technically...
I am going to lock this thread, if you have any questions, feel free to either join the forum or ask in the "Questions and Objections" forum.
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://www.valdezlink.com/media-hi/sunrise.jpg "[avatar]")
And that is that "Aluminum Glows". Since I have been following this movement pretty close, I am wondering why Judy would make it sound like, Steve Jones said "aluminum does not glow". When in fact, he has repeatedly said the exact opposite. ![[image]](http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/pics/furnace-2.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/pics/furnace.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.matus1976.com/akira_bike/al_pour.JPG "[image]")
![[image]](http://mirrorimageorigin.collegepublisher.com/media/paper305/stills/d676oeaq.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/casting/1_pouring1.JPG "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/casting/1_pouring2.JPG "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.laaluminum.com/images/Gravity-Pouring.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.foundry101.com/Alpour.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.foundry101.com/Brasspour0003.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.foundry101.com/bronzepour.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.foundry101.com/Ironpour.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/HeatTreat/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/casting/images/alum_casting_equipment.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.energysolutionscenter.org/HeatTreat/MetalsAdvisor/aluminum/heattreating/images/rotary_hearth.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326AR_b.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2006/Feb/18/FPI602180326V1_b.jpg "[image]")
Logged![[image]](http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/6254/cupolafrontsb7.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6600/mc2frontzk3.jpg "[image]")
But I do know some people are reading it, so I have decided to give a small update on where I stand after another day.![[image]](http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace-1.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace-3.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace-4.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7610/theauthorsresponseeo2.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/2691/theauthorsresponse2hi8.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/6286/theauthorsresponse1mv0.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/272/worldtradecentersiteafter911bf5.jpg "[image]")