1770 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

Yes, because the fires at GZ which were like pits of molten lava, like a volcano, like a foundry were actually smouldering....

Recorded temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. To further my point, we have photos and video of molten aluminum, but none of molten steel at ground zero.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:25 PM, said:

I do not know the source, just like FEMA didn't know the source of the vaprosied steel.

If it was vaporized, it wouldn't have been recoverable.

Quote

The laws of physics say that if numerous witnesses said they saw molten steel, they saw aluminium...

Considering firefighters are not trained nor knowledgeable to identify molten metal, what more can I say except those who were knowledgeable, which included structural engineers and investigators, have confirmed that no evidence of molten steel was found at ground zero.

Now, where's your evidence?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:30 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Recorded temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. To further my point, we have photos and video of molten aluminum, but none of molten steel at ground zero.

Recorded SURFACE  temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. <---Fixed that for you...lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

To further my point, we have photos and video of molten aluminum, but none of molten steel at ground zero.

There is no photos of molten aluminium in the rubble at GZ cause photos were not allowed.

Posting the photo of the metal showering out of WTC2, even if we assume it is aluminium (which it isn't!), doesn't disprove the eyewitness accounts.

Although you have fooled yourself that it does. lol

But you and logic seem to have an awkward relationship...lol

Edited by Stundie, 14 March 2013 - 07:34 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

If it was vaporized, it wouldn't have been recoverable.

Jesus, it's statements like this that prove to me you are pretending to be smarter than you actually are.

Are you denying there was vaporised steel now?? lol Even though it is documented by FEMA who are experts after all...lol

Are you denying because according to your loigc, if it's vaporised, it should have completely disappeared or have you ever though that parts of the beam were vaporised?? lol

Of course not, its a black and white world...lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Considering firefighters are not trained nor knowledgeable to identify molten metal, what more can I say except those who were knowledgeable, which included structural engineers and investigators, have confirmed that no evidence of molten steel was found at ground zero.

Now, where's your evidence?

Fire fighters are not morons and are more than capable of identifying the molten metal after they had cooled it down making the rest of your point entirely irrelevant...lol

Structual engineers and investigators and those at GZ confirmed there was molten steel, so much for your "No evidence!" mantra....lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:30 PM, said:

Recorded SURFACE  temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.
There is no photos of molten aluminium in the rubble at GZ cause photos were not allowed.

On the contrary, we have these photos of molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, and remember, they are falling toward the ground, not rising into the sky.





Simple common sense would dictate that the molten aluminum you see in the photos would have been found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:35 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

On the contrary, we have these photos of molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, and remember, they are falling toward the ground, not rising into the sky.





Simple common sense would dictate that the molten aluminum you see in the photos would have been found within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Sorry but you are not metallurgist and therefore not qualified to make that judgement...lol

And this doesn't disprove the multiple eyewitness accounts at GZ I'm afraid, regardless if you have manage to pull the wool over your own eyes and think it does...lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Fire fighters are not morons...

Nor, are they knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal.

Quote

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.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Sorry but you are not metallurgist...

On the contrary, what you see in the photos is what I have worked with for over 40 years.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:37 PM, said:

Nor, are they knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal.

Sorry but they are more than knowledgable......They put the fires out and would have identified the source of the molten metal. You are even saying that Ironworkers are too dumb to recognise molten steel and confused it with aluminium. hahahahaha!!

And then you want us to believe that those who said they saw molten beam or girders were mistaken cause they are made of aluminium aren't they Sky.... lol

Everyone at GZ is wrong, yet internet keyboard warrior who was not there is right...lol

Hilarious to think that you are taking yourself seriously! lol

Edited by Stundie, 14 March 2013 - 07:42 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

SAnd this doesn't disprove the multiple eyewitness accounts at GZ I'm afraid, regardless if you have manage to pull the wool over your own eyes and think it does...lol

Consider this:

Quote

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.


The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet'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 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.taipeitim...02/03/30/129774

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

.They put the fires out and would have identified the source of the molten metal.

Since the recorded temperatures at ground zero were far below the temperature needed to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then it is very lear that the molten metal seen was not steel at all.

Now once again, where is your evidence that molten steel was at ground zero?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:45 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Consider this:

I considered this...that the person who wrote it was not a metallurgist and therefore unable to qualify what metal it was...lol

And you also do not understand the word apparent in context with the article...apparent source with the actual source..lol

Edited by Stundie, 14 March 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Since the recorded temperatures at ground zero were far below the temperature needed to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then it is very lear that the molten metal seen was not steel at all.

Again bringing up the surface temperature and estimate to make your argument make you look silly. Its hard to take someone seriously who doesn't understand the difference yet keeps referring back to it as though it makes your point, when it clearly doesn't...lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

Now once again, where is your evidence that molten steel was at ground zero?

Eyewitness accounts...loads of them...lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

I considered this...that the person who wrote it was not a metallurgist and therefore unable to qualify what metal it was...

Consider this: I have the experience to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:50 PM, said:

Again bringing up the surface temperature and estimate to make your argument make you look silly.

On the contrary, I have already provided evidence and temperature data to backup my claims, whereas, you have offered nothing of substance.

Quote

Eyewitness accounts...loads of them..

From witnesses not knowledgeable enough to identify molten metal nor knowledgeable to differentiate the sound of falling elevators and bomb explosions.

In addition:

Quote

"Melted" Steel


Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Nothing recovered at ground zero capable of producing molten steel and temperatures recorded were under 2000 degrees.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 March 2013 - 01:35 AM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 15 March 2013 - 12:45 AM, said:

Consider this: I have the experience to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum.

Oh I'm sorry I Skyeagle,

Your arguments makes so much sense now!! Because you claim you can differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminium, that must mean that all those at GZ are wrong. Even though you were not at GZ and never saw what they say, even though they say they saw molten beams and girders, even though there was vaporised steel, there is NO EVIDENCE of molten steel, but LOTS OF EVIDENCE of molten aluminium because you know better.

How foolish of me...lol

After all fire fighters are not metallurgists and we all know that only a metallurgist and yourself, are the only people in the world capable of identifying molten steel, even a metallurgists in training isn't capable of differentiating between molten steel and aluminium until they are fully qualified.

I think you have proven that your expertise in metals, while sitting behind a keyboard trumps that of the multiple independent eyewitness accounts at GZ.

Cheers

Stundie

Edited by Stundie, 15 March 2013 - 11:10 AM.