Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 6 votes

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
3683 replies to this topic

#646    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:22 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

here's more evidence of extreme temperatures for you:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. 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.

That in no way indicates the presence of molten steel, :no: . Where did you get that idea? :huh:  Remember, Dr. Astaneh-Asl has said that fire, not explosives nor incendiaries, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse....

Charred does not mean, melted.

Quote

..., as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. ''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''"

http://www.nytimes.c...d-remedies.html

That confirms what I have been saying all along and that in regards fire weakening and buckling the steel structure. There are means to determine whether the steel buckled due to high impact temperatures or due to impact damage. First of all, you will see cracks develop due to impacts and I have repeadedly said that buckling was an indication that fire was weakening the steel structure of the WTC buildings and I have said so on many occasions.

I have also mentioned on a number of occasions that we throw hardened steel into ovens in order to form them into complexed shapes.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#647    monk 56

monk 56

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2012

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:23 AM

I'm sorry Skyeagle 409,

You have my sympathy with your quest, obviously you note i'm in with the conspiracy mob however i like you, i don't like inaccuracy, i've tried to help you, not wanting anything in return, i'm so sorry i can't do more to help, but all threads involved that you honestly try to give accurate information are always disputed, so you have a task that gives no thanks, but you go on regardless, well i thank you even if i look for conspiracy!

Hell if the World Trade Centre was in Timbuktu i may look further, but i know Americans are wasps in democracy, there were no bombs to bring the two towers down, i may go further saying that there are esoteric problems with secret societies over beliefs, but that is a different topic!!!!!!!

I would have more sympathy over trade centre conspiracy theorists if it was out of the way like TIMBUKTU, hell don't think that New Yorkers can be fooled that much, especially after 12 years!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu

Honestly conspiracy theorists there is so much to research, without getting bogged down on this disputed event regarding how the two towers came down, leave it, so much to research other than this, i'm sure that you would find that Skyeagle 409 would be less bogeyman if you moved on to more interesting research....again i say how many threads need to go down the rabbit hole on the conspiracy forum, indeed it is why i moved my own thread away, that has 12,000 hits, i joined in August 2012!!


#648    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:28 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 February 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

welders...torches...clean up...hot...even more hotter....ah doughnuts.
ah yes Homer it all makes sense now.

Well, you now know the rest of the story. BTW, when were the dust samples taken?  Remember, the residue which developed during construction will still be present within the rubble and will still show up in any dust samples along with residue from the torches of the clean-up crews.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#649    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:41 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

That in no way indicates the presence of molten steel, :no: .
what does vaporized indicate?

Quote

Where did you get that idea? :huh:
it was astaneh that stated it, he was the one that examined the steel.

Quote

Remember, Dr. Astaneh-Asl has said that fire, not explosives nor incendiaries, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
no that's not correct, astaneh proposed a simple hypothesis for evaluation, that is all. a hypothesis is just a guess. you can't elevate a hypothesis above a guess until you have evaluated all the evidence and found it to be consistent with the hypothesis. melted and vaporized steel is not consistent with the fire hypothesis, it is consistent with the incendiary hypothesis.

Quote

Charred does not mean, melted.
read the asteneh quote again - "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.", melted means melted. vaporized means more than melted.

has there been another building fire in history that has vaporized steel?

Edited by Little Fish, 15 February 2013 - 12:52 AM.


#650    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:43 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 12:28 AM, said:

Well, you now know the rest of the story. BTW, when were the dust samples taken?  Remember, the residue which developed during construction will still be present within the rubble and will still show up in any dust samples along with residue from the torches of the clean-up crews.
clearly, you haven't read the harrit paper, for if you had you would know that the chips did not conatain elemental or post molten iron prior to the calorimeter tests.


#651    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,955 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:43 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Frenat

With all due respect sir, it is impossible for a heart surgeon to explain all the nuances and details regarding surgical procedures to a layman, or for a physicist to explain such nuances to a layman.
We we know you don't fly.  I have.  I don't hold a current certificate but I bet I have far more experience than you.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

So too it is impossible to properly explain certain aeronautical details and nuances to a person who does not fly.

Please, immerse yourself in the heroics of Hani The Magnificent.  And please enjoy that. :tu:
Yes, it is impossible to explain to you how wrong you are about the maneuver being impossible.  Especially since you never look at any opposing evidence and have your fingers in your ears.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 February 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

The lists, whatever you like to call them, were derived from what's called a passenger manifest.  The only entity aware of what passengers were on their airplanes were the airlines.  Do you want to challenge that?  If so, please tell me from where the names were derived?

Did I EVER challenge that?  AGAIN, those ARE NOT the lists that I was talking about.  Since you've repeatedly gone off the topic of the FBI list that was put out on the 27th of September of that year after which ALL stories of hijackers being alive stopped, is that your way of agreeing?  Do you have ANYTHING to say about the FACT that all stories about hijackers supposedly being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released?  Anything at all?  Or are you going to AGAIN confuse it with the lists released by the airlines?

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#652    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:45 AM

View Postmonk 56, on 15 February 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

I'm sorry Skyeagle 409,

You have my sympathy with your quest, obviously you note i'm in with the conspiracy mob however i like you, i don't like inaccuracy, i've tried to help you, not wanting anything in return, i'm so sorry i can't do more to help, but all threads involved that you honestly try to give accurate information are always disputed, so you have a task that gives no thanks, but you go on regardless, well i thank you even if i look for conspiracy!

Hell if the World Trade Centre was in Timbuktu i may look further, but i know Americans are wasps in democracy, there were no bombs to bring the two towers down, i may go further saying that there are esoteric problems with secret societies over beliefs, but that is a different topic!!!!!!!

I would have more sympathy over trade centre conspiracy theorists if it was out of the way like TIMBUKTU, hell don't think that New Yorkers can be fooled that much, especially after 12 years!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu

Honestly conspiracy theorists there is so much to research, without getting bogged down on this disputed event regarding how the two towers came down, leave it, so much to research other than this, i'm sure that you would find that Skyeagle 409 would be less bogeyman if you moved on to more interesting research....again i say how many threads need to go down the rabbit hole on the conspiracy forum, indeed it is why i moved my own thread away, that has 12,000 hits, i joined in August 2012!!

It's okay!

I am trying to figure out why 911 conspiracist continue to use conspiracy websites as references when those websites are notorious for supplying disinformation and misinformation, as if the Cleveland airport and United 93 wasn't a prime example of what I am talking about. In case you didn't know, that is where 911 conspiracist were duped into thinking that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport and that its passengers were seen transported away. Well, when the dust cleared, it was determined that the aircraft they confused as United 93, which was a B-757, was Delta 1989, which was a B-767. The people they confused as passengers of United 93, were actually scientist from a KC-135.

Those are just a couple of examples. Another example is where they confused landing gear doors and aerodynamic fairings as a modified pod on United 175. Question is, why would anyone install a pod over the main landing gear area since that is where the landings gears retract and extend? :huh:  Another person confused the paint scheme on the forward lower fuselage of United 175. I had to show him a photo of another B-767 to make my point very clear that he confused the paint scheme as an attached pod, but why would anyone attach a pod to carry 1000 pounds of explosives anyway when they could have jammed more than 25,000 pounds of explosives in the cargo holds without modifying anything? <_<

There are other examples and the list is quite long as well.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 February 2013 - 12:48 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#653    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:46 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 February 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

clearly, you haven't read the harrit paper, for if you had you would know that the chips did not conatain elemental or post molten iron prior to the calorimeter tests.

I have heard some very bad things about the harrit paper.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#654    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:59 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 12:46 AM, said:

I have heard some very bad things about the harrit paper.
and yet nothing that refutes it.


#655    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:32 AM

Come one Skyeagle, I asked a question and you dodged it...and think by posting pictures, are you suggesting that who witnessed the steel were looking at photos?? lol

So here is a question for the panto villan in this debunking play house, you are at GZ and you removed some rubble and find some strange molten metal, how do you establish what it is?

A) Just pull a random metal out of the hat and say its metal X?
B )Don't bother trying to identify it, not even asking anyone else and just refer to it as molten metal?
C) Cool it down and examine what metal it is?
D) Just repeat the word aluminium, regardless of what metal it is cause when you look at it, you was in a different world and what other say it was who actually examined it?
E) Call a metallurgist?

There is no such thing as magic, just magicians and fools.

#656    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,336 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:51 AM

I just found this and wonder how far he can be trusted (btw he retired outside the USA):

Disclaimer: In no way should this be construed that I condone OBL or any of his ilk.

Posted Image


#657    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM

View PostStundie, on 15 February 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

Come one Skyeagle, I asked a question and you dodged it...and think by posting pictures, are you suggesting that who witnessed the steel were looking at photos?? lol

So here is a question for the panto villan in this debunking play house, you are at GZ and you removed some rubble and find some strange molten metal, how do you establish what it is?

A) Just pull a random metal out of the hat and say its metal X?

For me, I can look at a piece of metal and tell what it is. For an example, there are four  6" x 6" sheets of aluminum, and they are as follows:

1. 2024-T3
2. 7075-T6
3. 5052-0
4. 2024-0

I can visually identify each sheet, but if I want further confirmation, I will simply do the bend test because each sheet will have its own characteristics. 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 are used for structural purposes while 2024-0 and 5052-0 are used for non-structural purposes because they are too soft and 7075-T6 is stiffer than 2024-T3, which is why we must throw 7075-T6 into the oven to bring it down to the 7075-0 condition in order to form it as is the case with 4130 steel. After forming 7075-0, I will throw it back into the oven to heat-treat the sheet back to 7075-T6. I can use the same method to differentiate between stainless steel sheets as well, so for me, it would not take me very long to identify the material because I know what to look for whereas those who do not know what to look for are prone to misidentify the metal.

Quote

B )Don't bother trying to identify it, not even asking anyone else and just refer to it as molten metal?

The best bet for those who have no expertise in metals. Just call it what it is and leave the identification to the experts because it they see aluminum droplets spread along steel column, chances are they are going to say the steel column has partially melted. After all, look how some folks confused compacted WTC debris that underwent high temperatures as molten concrete. A closer look and you can see lettering on unburned paper buried within the compacted material, which should have told them the material was not molten concrete at all.

Quote

C) Cool it down and examine what metal it is?


Well, if it is cooled down, it will become evident as to what the material is. Knowing what to look for visually and by feel, you do not need to be an expert to identify the metal. If you have a powered tool available, you can do a spark test. If it doesn't spark, then it is not steel because aluminum doesn't spark. If the sparks are white, then it is titanium.You can use a magnet to determine whether the material is steel or aluminum because aluminum is non-magnetic. You can do the scratch test with your car keys because aluminum is softer than steel even though aluminum is stronger depending upon the material.

Quote

D) Just repeat the word aluminium, regardless of what metal it is cause when you look at it, you was in a different world and what other say it was who actually examined it?

If you know what to look for, then you call the metal what it is, so just refer to the two photos above as examples. otherwise you will be like BR where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel in regards to the facade of the WTC buildings and he says that he was there. Now, BR is aware that the facade was aluminum and not stainless steel

Quote

E) Call a metallurgist?

Since most people are not familiar with visual metal identification, that would be the best bet otherwise they will be like BR and misidentify the aluminun facade of the WTC buildings stainless steel. Let's take a look at a reply by Leslie Robertson :

Quote

Leslie Robertson


I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.

http://911myths.com/...es_Williams.pdf

Now, let's do a review. Below is a photo of aluminum

Posted Image

Note the silvery droplets in the following photo. If aluminum droplets are splattered all over steel columns, then chances are, people are going to say that the steel columns partially melted.

Posted Image

!

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 February 2013 - 07:35 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#658    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,394 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:44 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 February 2013 - 12:59 AM, said:

and yet nothing that refutes it.

Let's take a look.

Quote

Harrit asserts that the chips are fragments of an "energetic material". This claim is mostly based on DSC measurements, but we need to consider: is it supported by experimental evidence? The Harrit paper reports the energy content of the red chips to be in the range 1.5 - 7.5 kJ/g. This is in fact not very "energetic" at all when you consider that common organic materials such as simple hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons contain far more energy per gram than the red chips. Thus gasoline releases about 48 kJ/g, and stearic acid, found in plant and animal fats, releases about 40 kJ/g upon combustion. Since carbon, in some as yet unknown chemical state, is also found in the red chips, it is certain that some of the energy content of the red chips is accounted for by this non-thermitic ingredient. In fact, if the chips contained a mere 10 % of graphitic carbon it would account for more than half of their energy content!

He said:

Quote

". the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29."

http://screwloosecha...al-from-dr.html

This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic peak extending from approximately 420 - 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder, the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all, DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry textbook "Thermal Analysis" by W. Wendlandt.

Remember, the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 initiated at the impact areas and WTC2 collapse before WTC1 even though WTC1 was struck first. Let's examine why.

Posted Image

United 175 struck at a lower point on WTC2 than American 11, which struck WTC1 at a higher level. You will note that the weight above the impact zone of WTC2 is much greater than for WTC1, which is why WTC2 collapsed first even though it was struck last.

There is no indication nor evidence of a controlled demolition regarding either building.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 February 2013 - 07:53 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#659    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,182 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostGummug, on 15 February 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I just found this and wonder how far he can be trusted (btw he retired outside the USA):

Disclaimer: In no way should this be construed that I condone OBL or any of his ilk.

Ever see the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats"? Remember the General who tried to run through the wall of his office? The guy in your video (retired Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III) is the real-life General that character was based upon. Stubblebine has actually admitted on record that he did try, several times, to run through the walls of his office.

And no, he did not succeed.





Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 15 February 2013 - 09:13 AM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#660    Belial

Belial

    Devilish chappy.

  • Member
  • 4,417 posts
  • Joined:28 Jan 2007

Posted 15 February 2013 - 10:27 AM

I actually meant from both sides.

Where it states "For official use only" - gently rub a white wax candle over the area indicated.

Kick a habit - i never did like Tolkien...