Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


joc

Recommended Posts

ok.. have it your way.. you win... an invasion of armies will crush the competition..... nothing will stop an exchange of ideas,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok.. have it your way.. you win... an invasion of armies will crush the competition..... nothing will stop an exchange of ideas,

We are not talking about large armies anymore, we are talking special forces operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there some knowledge of the attacks before hand? I thort I read some post somewhere. Probably dreaming. But I do find it hard to believe that no one knew anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

time will tell a tale skyeagle

In the 11 years since the events, time has ALREADY told a tale.

The deception is rather obvious, for the curious and disinterested observer. :w00t:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the 11 years since the events, time has ALREADY told a tale.

The deception is rather obvious, for the curious and disinterested observer. :w00t:

Well, after more than 11 years, there is not one shred of evidence that implicates the US government. :no: In fact, re-examinations reconfirm the official story.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there some knowledge of the attacks before hand? I thort I read some post somewhere. Probably dreaming. But I do find it hard to believe that no one knew anything.

A number of countries had warned the United States that foreign terrorist were planning an attack on America and that terrorist attack commenced on 9/11/2001.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help me understand. This pools of molten metal. Is there any photos etc. also what color was it as alloy and steel vary greatly yet no one seems to have pointed this out.

As of now I am not aware of any photographs of the molten material found under the rubble of WTC. The only information we have received about it is from rescue workers, firemen, and police officers, basically eye witness reports.

Steel and aluminum can glow the same color depending on its level of heat. Look up the different color variations on both metals in molten form. Only difference is that steel requires over 2500 degrees for it to melt, aluminum only requiring 500 degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't there some knowledge of the attacks before hand? I thort I read some post somewhere. Probably dreaming. But I do find it hard to believe that no one knew anything.

Yes, there was prior foreknowledge that terrorists were planning an attack in the US. The evidence of that is undeniable. However, it is my own personal opinion that the Bush Administration was far too incompetent to prepare or recognize the potential dangers. Plus on top of that not all reports were accurate at all.

Some people would like to think because of the knowledge of terrorist attack, it clearly shows the US Governments involvement.

It is the same thing as saying:

I know the sun comes up at 545 this morning, does that mean I am responsible for the sun coming up that day?

Kind of ridiculous don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor

There are many many other reasons and signs that the government was involved, most all of it circumstantial. Primarily, the story itself cannot withstand scrutiny. The closer one looks, the more the story fails.

Impossible cellphone calls whose scripts are eerily similar to some of the scripts involved in the Newtown incident. Impossible collapses of buildings. Hijackers who are mysteriously still alive in other parts of the world. Huge coincidence of Vigilant Guardian and Tripod. Impossible aeronautical events at Pentagon and complete absence of a Boeing at Shanksville. The more recent interview with Wally Miller and others saying how it all played out that day.

It wasn't that OBL actually planned the attacks and OOPS, the federal government just missed it. Some elements of the government were compromised and in on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raptor

There are many many other reasons and signs that the government was involved, most all of it circumstantial.

False!! There is no evidence that implicates the US government.

Impossible cellphone calls ...

Nothing impossible considered that my cell phone worked in flight as well, so in that case, you are incorrect at best. :yes:

...whose scripts are eerily similar to some of the scripts involved in the Newtown incident.

False!

...Impossible collapses of buildings.

False! The French demolition technique proved you wrong again. :yes: Check it out.

......Hijackers who are mysteriously still alive in other parts of the world.

False!! That false story was plugged and you took that bait. :w00t:

oy4ee526df.jpg

472_saeed_alghamdi_passport2050081722-13059.jpg

Huge coincidence of Vigilant Guardian and Tripod.

On the contrary, a number of such exercises were conducted before 911, but apparently, you missed the boat on reality. :yes:

Impossible aeronautical events at Pentagon...

False! I have conducted similar maneuvers as a student pilot with less than 30 hours total time and look what you posted. :w00t: I guess you are not familiar with engine-out procedures. :no: Because you are not a pilot. :yes:

...and complete absence of a Boeing at Shanksville.

Wreckage of the B-757 you said, wasn't there.

739px-UA93_livery_debris.jpg

800px-UA93_fuselage_debris.jpg

I guess you forgot about the following message from United Airlines.

][/b]

Text: United Airlines Statement on Plane Crashes

Following is a statement issued by United Airlines on the crash of Flight 93 near Pittsburgh and Flight 175 in a location that was not immediately disclosed:

United Airlines has now confirmed that two of its aircraft have crashed.

— UA 93, a Boeing 757 aircraft, departed from Newark, N.J. at 8:01 a.m. local time, bound for San Francisco, with 38 passengers on board, two pilots, five flight attendants.

— UA 175, a Boeing 767 aircraft, departed from Boston at 7:58 a.m. local time, bound for Los Angeles, with 56 passengers on board, two pilots and seven flight attendants.

United has confirmed it will dispatch a team to Johnstown, Pa., as soon as possible to assist, in every way possible, with the investigation and to provide assistance to the family members.

“Our thoughts are with the passengers, employees and family members of those involved. Today’s events are a tragedy and our prayers are with everyone at this time,” said James E. Goodwin, United’s CEO.

Goodwin said United is working with all the relevant authorities involved in today’s events and will provide further information as soon as it is available.

http://www.washingto..._text091101.htm

It wasn't that OBL actually planned the attacks...

We are aware of your distortion attempts and deception routine. :yes:

Remember, you were the person who threw in that non-existent P-700 anti-ship missile at the Pentagon,, non-existent explosives you said, took down the light poles leading to the Pentagon, and you were the person who threw in nukes and the WTC buildings, not to mention molten steel in the absence of temperatures high enough to melt steel. You were also the person who misused FAA regulations and you made it clear that you are not familiar with pilot associations.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hijackers who are mysteriously still alive in other parts of the world.

No they're not. The only stories of any that were still alive came immediately after the event and BEFORE the final list with pictures was released. After that list came out there were no more stories. Any reasonable person would conclude the stories of some being alive was due to confusion over similar names.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive

Impossible aeronautical events at Pentagon

only in your mind. But you've shown multiple times your aeronautical knowledge is lacking.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they're not. The only stories of any that were still alive came immediately after the event and BEFORE the final list with pictures was released. After that list came out there were no more stories. Any reasonable person would conclude the stories of some being alive was due to confusion over similar names.

http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive

only in your mind. But you've shown multiple times your aeronautical knowledge is lacking.

nonexistent*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if there was foreknowledge of an attack and incompetence let it happen should those incompetent people not be held responsible. I know if a driver is to incompetent to drive to the conditions then often they pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they said the molten flow is steel, then they are not as knowledgeable on metals as I am. :no:

Absolute nonsense!! hahaha!!

You were not there, so you have no idea what they witnessed.

Furthermore, the temperatures didn't reach the melting point of steel. :no: That, is another clue. :yes:
Still waiting for evidence that the underground temperature was measure to prove that it never reached the melting point of steel.

And I know you haven't got proof of the underground temperatures because none were done.

Making another point you have raised invalid, however we know this pattern of behaviour all to well....lol

Not only that, knowledge in aerospace metals was my expertise. After all, I was an airframe technician.
Who gives a flying fricking toss?? lol I certainly don't care and I'm sure most of the forum members don't care either.

So the only person who cares about your expertise is you and I do not care whether you are a world leading authority on metals and have never touched a piece of metal in your life, or if you have spent your enitre life working with metals.

The point is, your expertise doesn't trump or beat independent and multiple eyewitness accounts no matter how much you wished it would. :w00t:

Let's just say they don't have the knowledge nor experience in working with aerospace metals as I have.
Lets test this shall we?? Are you more qualified than a professor Skyeagle?? :no:

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Does your knowledge and experience trump that of this independent eyewitness who was at GZ?? lol

You keep fooling yourself Skyeagle, it's funny to watch you delude yourself that you know better than everyone. I just can't believe people let you get away with such nonsensical arguments with no validity whatsoever.

That is correct. Anyone who is experience in aerospace metals will tell you that from the photos alone, the flow is not steel. :no:
Anyone who claims to be an expert in metals, even aerospace ones and even none experts such as myself, will tell you than from those photos alone, that is not aluminium.

Why?? Aluminium has a low emissivity and only glows orange at extremely high temperatures or in dark conditions and more importantly, it is highly conductive meaning that it loses it's thermal heat very quickly.

Of course, you would know that being a expert in metals. :w00t:

Knowledge over ignorance is where I have the advantage over those who have claimed the flow is molten steel, which clearly, it is not. :no:
And you knowledge is lacking evidently......lol
Check this out because buckling of the WTC buildings is evidence the fires weakened the structures of the WTC buildings, not explosives.
Sorry Mr Expert, but does your evidence of fires explain vaporised steel??

Dr Astaneh-Asl - "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

Oh don't tell me, your expertise again trumps that of the professor!! :w00t: And he doesn't know what he was talking about as there was no evidence of vaporised steel??

The buckling brings us right back to these reports.
Excellent double standards.

Nobody at GZ was qualified to say there was molten steel, but the police are qualified to notice notice buckling, which isn't seen on any video footage of the day, to know that the towers would collapse.

What an excellent post Skyeagle, you've hit new heights! :w00t:

Edited by Stundie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, we can safely come to a reliable conclusion the flow was not molten steel. :no:
Since temperatures of the rubble under the ground were never measured, we can safely come to a reliable conclusion that you are talking nonsense and are totally clueless.
Well, they can look at the silvery droplets and easily tell the silvery droplets are no way, steel.
Are you colour blind??....lol...2 things.

First, the droplets are glowing orange not silvery.

Secondly, if you or they (Whoever they are!) can look at silvery droplets and easily tell the silvery droplets are no way steel, then why can't they (the multiple and independent witnesses) look at a glowing pool of metal and easily tell that it is steel??

I look forward to another nonsensical argument or point. lol

The recorded temperatures, which were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel.
Recorded temperatures? Which recorded temperatures?
  • The paint analysis that the NIST did?
  • The thermal images from NASA?
  • Or some made up recorded temperature that you deluded yourself exists?

Simple common sense logic, you understand.
I hate to be th4e one to break it you, but there is no common sense, although I will agree it is simple.
In other words, since temperatures were too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then common sense would indicate that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel, and it doesn't take an expert to figure that out.
I know what you are saying, but your logic is not flowing correctly.

Seeing as we do not know the overall temperatures in the towers, therefore we cannot conclude that the temperatures were to low to melt steel but high enough to melt aluminium.

That is common sense.

Seeing as we do not know the temperature and the metal looks more like molten steel than aluminium, common sense says that chances are, it is molten steel.

It doesn't take an expert to work that out, although with you being an expert an all that, then you might struggle with the concept.

Understand what is presented in this video.

[media=]

[/media]

The video is absolute nonsense and pantomime debunking. :w00t:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and Skyeagle,

I almost forgot because you nicely subjected shifted away from what we were originally discussing, which was Blanchard/Protec over to molten steel/aluminium! :td:

You said you had loads of phone calls/emails/correspondence of some description with Protec or other experts that Brent Blanchard/Protec have demolished buildings. So if you are you telling the truth (Which I highly doubt cause the twoof hurts, even when it's truthful! lol) Are you going to give us a straight answer and tell me and the good lurkers of this thread?

Do you have evidence which can be shown to us that Brent Blanchard/Protec actually have/do demolish buildings?

Or

Are you going to admit that Brent Blanchard/Protec have never EVER demolished a building because they are a documentation service for the demolition industry?

Edited by Stundie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they're not. The only stories of any that were still alive came immediately after the event and BEFORE the final list with pictures was released. After that list came out there were no more stories. Any reasonable person would conclude the stories of some being alive was due to confusion over similar names.

http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive

only in your mind. But you've shown multiple times your aeronautical knowledge is lacking.

Yes, it did take quite a few attempts before the passenger manifests, or victim list, or whatever other euphemism you choose to use, was perfected.

You say one thing about the "hijackers", and newspaper articles and letters from around the world contradict you. Who to believe?

Not a word about the cellphone calls of the impossible variety?

And still, it is amusing all these years later, to see people pay homage to Hani The Magnificent. :tsu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolute nonsense!! hahaha!!

On the contrary, they made a mockery of themselves by claiming the molten material was steel when it fact, the droplets were that of aluminum. :w00t:

You were not there, so you have no idea what they witnessed.

I am aware of what they could not have seen. :yes:

Still waiting for evidence that the underground temperature was measure to prove that it never reached the melting point of steel.

Go back a few pages where I posted the specifics.

And I know you haven't got proof of the underground temperatures because none were done.

Go back a few pages.

So the only person who cares about your expertise is you and I do not care whether you are a world leading authority on metals and have never touched a piece of metal in your life, or if you have spent your enitre life working with metals.

I know enough about metals to prove that no one saw pools of molten steel in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

The point is, your expertise doesn't trump or beat independent and multiple eyewitness accounts no matter how much you wished it would. :w00t:

My expertise has already trumped claims of 911 conspiracist. :yes:

Lets test this shall we?? Are you more qualified than a professor Skyeagle?? :no:

Depends who that person is? I have more knowledge on thermite, explosives and metals than Richard Gage and Steven Jones. That was clearly evident when I read their reports.

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

angcut.jpg

That was caused by torches, not from thermite.

Does your knowledge and experience trump that of this independent eyewitness who was at GZ?? lol

If he claims that molten steel caused by thermite was found in the rubble, then yes, I am more knowledgeable than he is.

You keep fooling yourself Skyeagle, it's funny to watch you delude yourself that you know better than everyone.

You don't seem to understand that 911 conspiracist continued to delude themselves. :w00t::yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who claims to be an expert in metals, even aerospace ones and even none experts such as myself, will tell you than from those photos alone, that is not aluminium.

On the contrary I even posted a photo of an aluminum droplet to make my point very clear and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Why?? Aluminium has a low emissivity and only glows orange at extremely high temperatures or in dark conditions and more importantly, it is highly conductive meaning that it loses it's thermal heat very quickly.

Take a look at this chart. What does it indicate?htchar1.gif

Now, you know why silvery droplets can be seen in the photos. :yes: It seems you do not understand what you are posting. :no:

Of course, you would know that being a expert in metals. :w00t:

And you knowledge is lacking evidently......lol

On the contrary, there were reasons why Raytheon Aerospace and the USAF sent me around the country on fact finding tours. Hint! It had to do with my expertise in airframes.

Sorry Mr Expert, but does your evidence of fires explain vaporised steel??

On the contrary, do your physics lesson and understand the temperatures were high enough to weaken steel.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Mr Expert, but does your evidence of fires explain vaporised steel??

Show a photo of vaporized steel that was recovered at the WTC sites. I am waiting. :yes:

Dr Astaneh-Asl - "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

cut2.jpg

Yeah, right!!! :D That was done by a steel worker.

cut.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since temperatures of the rubble under the ground were never measured, we can safely come to a reliable conclusion that you are talking nonsense and are totally clueless.

Are you colour blind??....lol...2 things.

First, the droplets are glowing orange not silvery.

Let's take another look.

moltenal2.jpg

What do you see at the bottom of the photo? Silvery droplets and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Secondly, if you or they (Whoever they are!) can look at silvery droplets and easily tell the silvery droplets are no way steel, then why can't they (the multiple and independent witnesses) look at a glowing pool of metal and easily tell that it is steel??

I could show an alumumin droplet to many people who have never seen molten metal will describe droplet as steel.

Recorded temperatures? Which recorded temperatures?

hotspots-compare.jpg

You will note that the temperature range comes nowhere near the melting point of steel. :P

Seeing as we do not know the temperature and the metal looks more like molten steel than aluminium, common sense says that chances are, it is molten steel.

There is nothing in the photos that depict molten steel. Even experts agree that the material is aluminum. :yes:

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the airliner's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out of the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2002/03/30/129774/4

So once again, you bit the dust. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and Skyeagle,

I almost forgot because you nicely subjected shifted away from what we were originally discussing, which was Blanchard/Protec over to molten steel/aluminium! :td:

You mean, Brent Blanchard, one of the world's top demolition experts who has been involved in thousands of demolition implosions? :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets test this shall we?? Are you more qualified than a professor Skyeagle?? :no:

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Does your knowledge and experience trump that of this independent eyewitness who was at GZ?? lol

Yes it does. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:

Let's take a look at what he has said.

University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel at Fresh Kills Landfill notes, “I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.” Astaneh also “describes the connections [between supporting columns] as being smoothly warped: ‘If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted – it’s kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot – perhaps around 2,000 degrees.’”.

Warped does not translate into molten steel. :no: You will note that I have posed comments from those who have noticed the WTC buildings buckling before they collapsed which is a clear indication the structures are being weakened by fire and nothing to do with explosives. :no: Tell that to your professor and let him know that it was skyeagle409 who told you to tell him to do his homework. :yes:

"Perhaps, around 2000 degrees????" He doesn't even know for sure! Tell us what is the melting point of steel?

Iron workers at the site pointed out that huge columns that were bent into horseshoe shapes - without the flanges showing any cracks or buckling. They cited, "It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this".

Proof-positive that professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl doesn't know what he is talking about. :no: :no: :no: :no: Look at this video and you will note that the steel beam buckled and it didn't take thousands degrees. Some steels will begin to melt at 2500 degrees.

Take a look at this steel column from WTC 5, which buckled from heat from office furniture.

normal_WTC_5_Very_bent_column.jpg

So go back and tell your professor that skyeagle409 knows much more about metals than he does.

:yes:

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it did take quite a few attempts before the passenger manifests, or victim list, or whatever other euphemism you choose to use, was perfected.

It has been made very clear to you that the "victims list" was not a manifest, because the hijackers were not considered victims. :no:

Not a word about the cellphone calls of the impossible variety?

As I have mentioned before, cell phones have been used in aircraft, and have worked, including mine to the point I had to turn it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeing as we do not know the temperature and the metal looks more like molten steel than aluminium, common sense says that chances are, it is molten steel.

No chance, considering the temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel and the flow is clearly not that of molten steel. :no:

New Evidence Is Reported That Floors Failed on 9/11

Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.

In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was
probably
molten
aluminum
from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."

http://www.nytimes.c...874000&adxnnl=1

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Now, for the rest of the story.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, (WTC and the overpass in California) basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed.

In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.

Source:

On 9/11." Transcript with links to read Audio and streaming video of the May 10, 2007 NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Spencer MIchels on PBS. UC Berkeley Professor Abolhassan Astaneh

http://www.engineeringpathway.com/engpath/ep/learning_resource/summary/Summary?id=26F3B573-8FC5-4B3F-8DE7-521E6DD34E60

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.