WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

There are those who think they know better, they were never at GZ and they have never examined a piece of steel from GZ either.

Yet hilariously, they think they know better when evidently they don't.

As an airframe technician, I worked with all kinds of metal, including various types of steel, titanium, and aluminum. The job also involved metal identification, annealing and heat-treating. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that since temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, but were high enough to melt aluminum, what they saw was aluminum, not steel.

What is the claim of molten steel suppose to indicate anyway?

[skyeagle409]

There nothing factual about what you have posted. As I said, they would have cooled it down before they lifted it, making your entire point moot.

But then you and moot points are partners in crime, deceiving the gullible.....lol

hahahaahahahaha!! Oh dear, poor Skyeagle doesn't understand pretext.

On the contrary, I understood it quite clearly. On another note, try using the same machinery to lift a pool of honey.

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about, you assume that when anyone states that steel is molten, it means the entire object is molten when nothing could be further from the truth.

Its absurd that your debunking as resorted to new pantomine lows but not surprising...lol

Or Skyeagle who thinks he knows better than those experts at GZ with his so called 40 years of experience. lol

Neither Richard Gage nor Steven Jones have my level of expertise in metal identification. After all, that was part of my job description for over 40 years.

Or Skyeagle who thinks he knows better than those experts at GZ with his so called 40 years of experience. lol

What was it that you didn't understand at post 719?

Why do you think the real experts have disagreed with Richard Gage and Steven Jones? I think it's time for you to do some homework using the following video as a reference and supply us with information from certain timelines.

Referencing the video above, tell us about the following timelines.

1. Timeline: 0:57 - 1:19

2. Timeline: 1:18 - 1:40

3. Timeline: 2:53

4. Timeline: 3:28 - 3:41

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

As an airframe technician, I worked with all kinds of metal, including various types of steel, titanium, and aluminum. The job also involved metal identification, annealing and heat-treating.

You mean the job involves you googling and pretending to be a airframe technician

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that since temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, but were high enough to melt aluminum, what they saw was aluminum, not steel.

Since there are no reliable measurments of the temperatures under the rubble and the eyewitnesses all identify/report that the molten metal as steel, it takes a so called airframe technician to figure out that everyone was wrong and it was aluminium, all from behind his keyboard. Hilarious pantomime debunkings.....lol

What is the claim of molten steel suppose to indicate anyway?

40 years of expertise and he can't figure it out....lol

[Stundie]

On the contrary, I understood it quite clearly. On another note, try using the same machinery to lift a pool of honey.

You failed yet again and pwned yourself.

Why would a digger operator try and lift pools of molten steel?? lol

Neither Richard Gage nor Steven Jones have my level of expertise in metal identification. After all, that was part of my job description for over 40 years.

I'm sure Richard Gage doesn't have your architectual experience not Steven Jones your experience in physics. lol

Cause Dr Asanteh doesn't have your experience either does he?? lol

What was it that you didn't understand at post 719?

The part where you assume that the molten steel was still molten when it was collected...lol

Why do you think the real experts have disagreed with Richard Gage and Steven Jones?

You mean experts like you?? lol

I think it's time for you to do some homework using the following video as a reference and supply us with information from certain timelines.

I think it's time you flexed your expertise and write a paper instead of posting on a forum crying about their areas of expertise and how yours trumps everything...lol

Referencing the video above, tell us about the following timelines.

1. Timeline: 0:57 - 1:19

2. Timeline: 1:18 - 1:40

3. Timeline: 2:53

4. Timeline: 3:28 - 3:41

They are all points of pantomime debunking where they pretend there was no molten steel?? lol

[skyeagle409]

You failed yet again and pwned yourself.

On the contrary, you failed to address the issues.

Why would a digger operator try and lift pools of molten steel?? lol

He wouldn't, which makes my point, because 911 conspiracist claimed the material was molten steel, which clearly, it is not.

I'm sure Richard Gage doesn't have your architectual experience not Steven Jones your experience in physics. lol

Basically, structures are structures, all following the laws of physics.

Cause Dr Asanteh doesn't have your experience either does he?? lol

He doesn't have the many years of experience working with metals that I have. On another note, you failed to address each of the timelines, so in case you missed the references, here they are again.

Referencing the video, tell us about the following timelines.If you dodge the issue again, I will make your dodging an issue.

1. Timeline: 0:57 - 1:19

2. Timeline: 1:18 - 1:40

3. Timeline: 2:53

4. Timeline: 3:28 - 3:41

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You mean the job involves you googling and pretending to be a airframe technician

On the contrary, I was awarded "Civil of the Quarter," by the USAF and by Raytheon Aerospace, Travis AFB, CA.

Since there are no reliable measurments of the temperatures under the rubble...

That doesn't work for you because references have been provided. Seems you missed the reports and references already provided.

a

[Stundie]

On the contrary, you failed to address the issues.

I've addressed all your moot points and it boils down to thinking you know better than those at GZ. You clearly don't undertand when you have self pwned yourself....lol

He wouldn't, which makes my point, because 911 conspiracist claimed the material was molten steel, which clearly, it is not.

9/11 conspiracists do not claim the molten metal is steel, those who were at GZ claim it was.....lol

So if a digger wouldn't pick up molten steel, then why bring the point up??

You did say...."There would have been no way to lift molten steel with such a machine" and I don't recall anyone arguing that they would be ablke to lift it. hahahahahahaha!!

Basically, structures are structures, all following the laws of physics.

You mean like those structures which were brought down by thermite in 1935, disproving your claim that thermite can't bring down WTC.

After all, structures are structures, all following the laws of physics, right?? lol

He doesn't have the many years of experience working with metals that I have.

And how do you know this?? lol

How do you know you haved more experience than him? I mean I didn't see them ask for Skyeagles expertise at GZ did you?? lol Expertise that disappears when you are not near a computer....lol

[skyeagle409]

The part where you assume that the molten steel was still molten when it was collected...lol

Apparently, you are not paying any attention whatsoever! Now, as a challenge, go back and post where I said, the material was molten steel. If you have been paying attention, you would have found that 911 conspiracist clamed the material was molten steel, not I.

[skyeagle409]

I've addressed all your moot points and it boils down to thinking you know better than those at GZ. ...

No you didn't and once again, you have dodged the issue again!!!

So once again, address each of the following timelines.

1. Timeline: 0:57 - 1:19

2. Timeline: 1:18 - 1:40

3. Timeline: 2:53

4. Timeline: 3:28 - 3:41

[Stundie]

On the contrary, I was awarded "Civil of the Quarter," by the USAF and by Raytheon Aerospace, Travis AFB, CA.

No one but you care Skyeagle.

And isn't it Civilian of the Quarter?? lol

That doesn't work for you because references have been provided. Seems you missed the reports and references already provided.

NASA Photos only show the surfaqce temperature.

The NIST paint analysis only shows the temperature those peices of steel reached.

There are no measurements of temperatures under the rubble, hence you can post all the references in the world and it will not change the fact that no temperatures were measured in/under the rubble.

Making your entire premise that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel a complete waste of time, when you consider that there plenty of people who witnessed molten steel.....not aluminium...lol

[Stundie]

Apparently, you are not paying any attention whatsoever! Now, as a challenge, go back and post where I said, the material was molten steel. If you have been paying attention, you would have found that 911 conspiracist clamed the material was molten steel, not I.

I think you'll find that conspiracist were not at GZ and they never claimed there was molten steel.

I think you'll find that the claim belongs to people who were at GZ. lol

Showing how little you have been paying attention.....lol

[skyeagle409]

No one but you care Skyeagle.

It should!! After all, it took many years of experience in the field of working knowledge in airframes and metals to gain such an award.

NASA Photos only show the surfaqce temperature.

Once again, you are not paying attention. What have reports indicated about temperatures at ground zero below 2000 degrees? Look it up.

The NIST paint analysis only shows the temperature those peices of steel reached.

That is incorrect because paint does not adhere to molten steel.

[Stundie]

No you didn't and once again, you have dodged the issue again!!!

So once again, address each of the following timelines.

1. Timeline: 0:57 - 1:19

2. Timeline: 1:18 - 1:40

3. Timeline: 2:53

4. Timeline: 3:28 - 3:41

I've addressed the issues, they are all pantomime debunking.

Look at the first time line which uses the NASA images to determine the temperatures under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, even though the eyewitnesses saw steel and only a moron would use it prove that the temperatures under the rubble and doesn't understand what the surface temperature means.

[skyeagle409]

I think you'll find that conspiracist were not at GZ and they never claimed there was molten steel.

Since the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, simply common sense dictates that there was no molten steel to be found, but since temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, then aluminum is what they saw.

Simply common sense is all it takes.

[skyeagle409]

I've addressed the issues, they are all pantomime debunking.

Once again, you have dodged the timeline questions again and have failed to address each of the timelnes. We got your number.

[Stundie]

It should!! After all, it took many years of experience in the field of working knowledge in airframes and metals to gain such an award.

No one cares if you got a Civil of Quarter whatever the hell it is?? lol

Once again, you are not paying attention. What have reports indicated about temperatures at ground zero below 2000 degrees? Look it up.

I have looked it up and other than paint analysis from the NIST on the steel they found, there were no accurate or measured temperatures underneath the rubble piles.

If we used the NIST paoint analysis, we could also conclude there was no molten aluminiun either, let alone steel....lol

That is incorrect because paint does not adhere to molten steel.

The paint analysis was done by the NIST to determine the temperatiure the steel beam reached. I never said it adhered to molten steel.....showing that you can't follow a simple conversation......lol

[Stundie]

Since the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, simply common sense dictates that there was no molten steel to be found, but since temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, then aluminum is what they saw.

Simply common sense is all it takes.

Since there were no recorded temperatures under the rubble at GZ, then common sense dictates that you can't say that there was no molten steel found when there was plenty of people who witnessed it.

Common sense also indicates that the people at GZ have a much better understanding of what they saw than some internet warrior who has deluded themselves they know better.

And common sense also says that it wasn't aluminium seeing as no one refers to it as such...lol

[Gummug]

At what temperature does steel lose 50% of its strength? What temperature range was reached within the WTC buildings, keeping in mind the redistributed structural loadsI due to impacts?

Right, I agree. I thought he was saying that it would be liquid at thousands of degrees...I was just saying, thousands of degrees might mean 2000...at which point I don't think it would be liquid. At 2500 or over, pretty much liquid. I'm not a metallurgist so I can't say with authority. Evidently the melting point varies with the type of steel/iron as well.

[skyeagle409]

No one cares if you got a Civil of Quarter whatever the hell it is?? lol

Dodging the timeline questions again!!

Molten Metal at Ground Zero

Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

[Stundie]

Once again, you have dodged the timeline questions again and have failed to address each of the timelnes. We got your number.

No need....lol

The debunker of the video doesn't know the temperatures under the rubble and uses pantomime debunking to suggest that because all of the analysis shows temperatures not hot enough to melt steel, that there was no molten steel, even though none of the measurements paint an accurate picture of the temperatures under the rubble.

Its pure panto, debunking, pretending to debunk a point based on a point you never had in the first place...lol

[skyeagle409]

Right, I agree. I thought he was saying that it would be liquid at thousands of degrees...I

The steel beam clearly indicates it was formed at temperatures below the melting point of steel and under extreme stress.

[skyeagle409]

No need.

The debunker of the video doesn't know the temperatures...

Another dodge! From now on, I am going to begin recording the number of your dodging routines.

Why 911 conspiracy websites cannot be trusted. A conspiracy website wrote this about the following photo.

An excavating machine at Ground Zero lifts debris dripping with molten metal

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Dodging the timeline questions again!!

There is nothing to dodge, you have no evidence those at GZ were wrong about the molten steel.

And it doesn't matter how many panto debunking links you post, they do not possess the evidence those at GZ were wrong either, just assumptions based on what you think you know, which you clearly don't.......lol

[Stundie]

The steel beam clearly indicates it was formed at temperatures below the melting point of steel and under extreme stress.

The steel beam clearly indicates that it was formed at extremely high temperatures and that it much have been soft for it to succumb to that extreme stress without any signs of fracturing.

Another dodge!! From now on, I am going to begin recording the number of your dodging routines.

Don't worry, you've got about a 200 dodge head start.....lol

[skyeagle409]

There is nothing to dodge, you have no evidence those at GZ

Dodge # 3

There is no evidence that temperatures reached the melting point of steel.

Edited February 18, 2013 by skyeagle409