WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[Stundie]

Fire protection remained intact and none were struck by B-767s. BIG difference.

How silly, you forgot that WTC7 was not struck by a 767...lol

And WTC 5 was struck by debris as it was closer to WTC 1 & 2 than WTC7 and suffered much more impact and fires in comparison to the size of the building.

Meaning that old chestnut doesn't work for you matey....lol

The WTC buildings had there fire protection knocked off which exposed its steel structure to fire. In addition, inspections prior to 911 attacks found that the fire protection of the WTC buiilding was substandard and improperly installed. Photos show rust and exposed structures of the building and substandard fire protection installation.

ZZZzzzzzzzz!!

Thermite could not have brought down the WTC buildings and there was no evidence of thermite at ground zero.

Are you sure, because you said last year that thermite would be found?? lol

Ever thought why RDX, which is much more effective than thermite and used by the demolition industry, requires the use of explosives and structure pre-weakening?

Again, repeating yourself.....lol

Ever wondered why you think that fire is better than explosives because it doesn't require pre-weakening according to your logic?? Of course not cause that will challenge your double think...lol

Reality time. Demolition companies do not use thermite for demolishing buildings. A single person with a powered saw can knock down a steel tower. Nothing new there.

Demo companies don't use fires, although I'm sure there is a gap in the market for your matchbox demolition company because fires are more than capable of taking down an overpass and a toy factory in a third world country...lol

[skyeagle409]

Yeah, he likes the shame and clearly has masochistic tendencies....lol

Lesson time

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

Demo companies don't use fires, although I'm sure there is a gap in the market for your matchbox demolition company because fires are more than capable of taking down an overpass and a toy factory in a third world country

In case you didn't know it, and you didn't, building implosions require a great level of precision, and fire does not meet that level of precision. Just thought you might want to know that. On another note, do airliners carry oxygen generators?

Edited April 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

On the contrary, WTC7 suffered from massive impact damage. Did that building in Russia suffer from such massive impact damage as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7? No!

* Fires within WTC 7

* Massive impact damage to WTC 7

* Buckling of WTC 7 before its collapse

In addition:

The Kader Toy Factory Fire

The burning question of safety

This week marked the 13th anniversary of the disastrous Kader toy factory fire in Buddha Monthon district of Nakhon Pathom, in which 188 workers died and 469 were injured. Many who died on May 10, 1993 were young women from impoverished rural families. A large number of the injured suffered serious and permanent disabilities after they were forced to jump from second, third and fourth floors of the buildings to avoid being burned alive. Hundreds of workers were packed into each of the three structures that collapsed.

There were no fire extinguishers, no alarms, no sprinkler systems and the elevated walkways between the buildings were either locked or used as storage areas. The buildings themselves were firetraps, constructed from steel girders that buckled and gave way in less than 15 minutes.

http://www.thaivisa....y-factory-fire/

Three steel framed buildings collapsing due to fire in 15 minutes.

Notice that a huge bomb was unable to bring down WTC1 in 1993. You will also notice that the steel columns were hardly affected by the huge bomb blast even though they are sitting in the crater of the blast.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.

Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

http://www.debunking...m/firsttime.htm

After 9:59 am: WTC Building 7 appears damaged

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there.

According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls,

"At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls recounts, "A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side."

Captain Chris Boyle recalls,

"On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors."

http://www.oilempire.us/wtc7.html

Yes, lets use a third world sub standard toy factory as a comparison to the WTC7......lol

While more realistic buildings such as One Meridan Plaza, Caracas Towers, First Interstate Bank, 1 New York Plaza, Beijing Mandarin Hotel and WTC 5 which are all high rise steel structures just like the WTC7, should be avoided....lol

Because they didn't collapse from fires!! hahahahahahahahaha!! lol

[Stundie]

Compressed air is forced out, which was exactly the case when the WTC buildings collapsed, and this video backups it up. Simply scientific logic, you understand. Something that even a high school science student would have understood. Check it out.

ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE

Thus, based on the dimensions of each WTC tower, there were 10,000 m3 of “open space” per floor. The collapsing floor acted like a giant piston compressing the air occupying the open space between floor and ceiling.

The pressure build-up would have shattered windows almost immediately, expelling the enclosed air. However, the process of collapse would have simultaneously crushed the gypsum wallboard and fiberglass insulation present on every floor and some of this debris would have been expelled also.

How fast was this dust cloud expelled? The first collapsing floor fell the 3.7-meter ceiling-to-floor distance in 0.87 seconds and subsequent floors fell much faster. It follows that a volume of dusty air near the center of a collapsing floor traversed a horizontal distance of about 16 meters in 0.87 seconds in exiting the building. This volume therefore had an average expulsion velocity of 66 km or 41 miles per hour. As we have shown, the twin towers ultimately attained a collapse velocity in excess of 50 m/s in which case thelower floors were crushed in 0.074 seconds and dust expulsion velocities approached 778 km or 484 miles per hour!

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Very simple to understand, which was something I knew back in high school. And remember, this video debunks claims that the WTC squibs was evidence of explosives.

Its not compressed air, because the air is not continuous as the air is escaping as the building collapses....lol

Its goes puff, then does a u-turn and moves to another location. And compressed air doesn't do that...lol

Another debunking fail to add to the skip, which is getting full....lol

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Yes, lets use a third world sub standard toy factory as a comparison to the WTC7.....

And, those steel frames buildings collapsed in 15 minutes due to fire, as noted in the reports. Now, let's use 911 Truther standard of evidence for 911 regarding explosives.

As you can plainly see, not one of those steel columns was destroyed by that huge bomb.

While more realistic buildings such as One Meridan Plaza, Caracas Towers, First Interstate Bank, 1 New York Plaza, Beijing Mandarin Hotel and WTC 5 which are all high rise steel structures just like the WTC7, should be avoided...

I am very sure their fire protection remained intact despite the fact that WTC5 suffered from internal structural collapse, which I am sure you were unaware of.

Edited April 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Its not compressed air, because the air is not continuous as the air is escaping..

False, and my point can be demonstrated using an ordinary syringe. I guess you never took science in school. Lol

[skyeagle409]

There is plenty of evidence which refutes it.

So far, you haven't posted any evidence.

[Stundie]

Lesson time

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

In case you didn't know it, and you didn't, building implosions require a great level of precision, and fire does not meet that level of precision. Just thought you might want to know that. On another note, do airliners carry oxygen generators?

Lesson time....

Fails at testing the hypothesis....lol

So therefore the NIST are WRONG as they failed the scientific method of testing!!

[Stundie]

Holy Smokes! Did anybody see the pictures on last night's TV news about the tall building (unoccupied and still under construction) that caught fire somewhere in Russia?

Huge flames, going on for hours, and somehow the building did not collapse. Funny thing was all the falling debris fell straight down vertical. None was ejected laterally like at WTC.

Wonder why? I guess the laws of physics were on holiday at WTC, eh?

That is because only on 9/11 do buildings collapse from fires.

Oh and overpasses and third world toy factories of course.... ....lol

[skyeagle409]

Lesson time....

Fails at testing the hypothesis....lol

So therefore the NIST are WRONG as they failed the scientific method of testing!!

Look at those aluminum droplets in the video because they match the aluminum droplets in this photo.

[Stundie]

False, and my point can be demonstrated using an ordinary syringe. I guess you never took science in school. Lol

As pointed out which you ignored....as you do with lots of things you are wrong about, hence you never address everything I post...lol

What happens when the syringe is being pushed down?

A ) Does the air continue to escape outwards from the hole as the syringe continues to be pushed down.

B ) Does the air puff out and then stop and do a U-turn and find another escape route, then puff air out and stop, then do a U-turn and find another escape route and puff out and stop and repeat until the syringe plunger is down.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

That is because only on 9/11 do buildings collapse from fires.

On the contrary, you mentioned the Kader Toy steel frame buildings that collapsed due to fire in 15 minutes. The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed as well.

[Stundie]

Look at those aluminum droplets in the video because they match the aluminum droplets in this photo.

WOW!! That is you evidence....lol

A picture of molten steel is evidence of molten aluminium...lol

[skyeagle409]

As pointed out which you ignored....

That doesn't work because investigations have already debunked your claim.

[Stundie]

On the contrary, you mentioned the Kader Toy steel frame buildings that collapsed due to fire in 15 minutes.

I also mentioned about 6 other buildings which are high rise steel structures like the WTC which didn't...lol

That doesn't work because investigations have already debunked your claim.

Ignorance doesn't equal debunking.

Although you have fooled yourself it does...hahahahahahaha!!!!

[skyeagle409]

WOW!! That is you evidence....lol

A picture of molten steel...

The silvery droplets are by no means, steel and the video you posted proved that fact and look what you posted. You didn't even understand what you have posted!! Review your video.

Molten Metal

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Edited April 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

The silvery droplets are by no means, steel and the video you posted proved that fact and look what you posted. You didn't even understand what you have posted!! Review your video.

There are no silvery droplets...lol

I reviewed it and the temperature of the metal in the WTC is at a minimum of 1200C.

• The metal is glowing red hot as it falls and maintain its heat unlike aluminium.
  
• Its glowing red hot in daylight conditions unlike aluminium.
  
• The consistency of the source metal is not liquid/water like, unlike aluminium would be at 1200C
  

Therefore its not aluminium...lol

[skyeagle409]

Molten Metal at Ground Zero

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[Stundie]

Molten Metal at Ground Zero

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

They failed. They mixed aluminium with other materials and it looked nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.

Here is the video of the man from the NIST failing...AGAIN Aeeing as you are repeating yourself, I'll feel I should do the same until you can actually address the points raised.

hahahahahaahahaha!!!

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

There are no silvery droplets...

Let's take another look.

Now, what is that we see on the lower part of the photo? Silvery droplets and yet, you said:

" There are no silvery droplets...."

In other words, you are guilty of spewing disinformation.

I reviewed it and the temperature of the metal in the WTC is at a minimum of 1200C.

• The metal is glowing red hot as it falls and maintain its heat unlike aluminium.
  
• Its glowing red hot in daylight conditions unlike aluminium.
  
• The consistency of the source metal is not liquid/water like, unlike aluminium would be at 1200C
  

Again, you haven't been paying any attention. Check it out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[skyeagle409]

They failed. They mixed aluminium with other materials and it looked nothing like the stuff pouring out of the WTC.

Here is the video of the man from the NIST failing...AGAIN Aeeing as you are repeating yourself, I'll feel I should do the same until you can actually address the points raised.

[media=]

[/media]

If you look a bit harder, you will see orange material as he pours the aluminum,which once again, debunks your claim. And:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Edited April 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Let's take another look.

Now, what is that we see on the lower part of the photo? Silvery droplets and yet, you said:

" There are no silvery droplets...."

In other words, you are guilty of spewing disinformation.

Watch the video, you can still see they are glowing hot...lol

Again, you haven't been paying any attention. Check it out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://wtc.nist.gov/...faqs_8_2006.htm

No, I've responded to your spam with this....

A video showing that what the NIST say is patently false because they cannot repeat the conditions and therefore under scientific methods, they have failed to test their hypothesis.

Repeating the NIST FAQs, doesn't change the fact they failed to test their hypothesis under scientific conditions...lol

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Watch the video, you can still see they are glowing hot...

And, you will see orange material inside the cup as the aluminum is poured. Are you denying this?

[Stundie]

And, you will see orange material inside the cup as the aluminum is poured. Are you denying this?

No, you see orange when he is applying the flame, which is what you would expect, but you do not see any orange once it is being poured and it looks nothing like the molten stuff falling from the WTC which stays hot for many floors.

And that was after an hour of trying to mix the materials...lol

Again, proving that your aluminium theory is falling apart before your eyes...lol

Edited April 4, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

No, you see orange when he is applying the flame...

You mean, there is orange color in that cup after all?? I rest my case.