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This topic has been archived.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

#961    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,005 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:35 PM

Keep that hat on Yamato! :gun:

If the towers collapsed upon their own 'impact wounds' from gravity and jetfuel fires, what force was it that propelled a very large piece of structural steel to impale itself into the American Express building?


#962    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,005 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:37 PM

View PostYamato, on 01 March 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

*Tin foil hat off*

Molten beams isn't evidence of the loony conspiracy that's been manufactured over it.   Rusty iron beams + molten aluminum + a raging inferno lit by jet fuel = Thermite.  It's not a conspiracy.  It's a simple damned fact.   The towers collapsed on their impact wounds.  Video evidence proved this beyond only the nuttiest of doubt.   Thanks "truthers" for doing an immense disservice to your country and the world, and letting evil escape with the truth out the back door.

*Tin foil hat back on*

Keep that hat on Yamato.

If the towers collapsed upon their own impact wounds, what force was it that propelled a very massive piece of structural steel laterally with sufficient energy to impale itself into the American Express building several hundred feet away?


#963    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,005 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 01 March 2013 - 02:38 PM

Sorry for the double post this morning.  Something is odd with the posting process.


#964    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 March 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:


If the towers collapsed upon their own 'impact wounds' from gravity and jetfuel fires, what force was it that propelled a very large piece of structural steel to impale itself into the American Express building?

Well, you know that when a huge bomb was detonated beneath WTC1 in 1993, not one steel column was ejected from beneath the building, In fact, not one steel column was destroyed by the huge bomb.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#965    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 05:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 01 March 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

Keep that hat on Yamato! :tu:

If the towers collapsed upon their own impact wounds from gravity and jetfuel, what force hurled that large chunk of structural steel at velocity sufficient to impale it on the American Express building several hundred feet away?

That was due to the collapse of the buildings. Remember, blast waves flow around steel structures like wind flowing over the wings of an aircraft. Ever wondered why steel structures must be pre-weaken before they can be demolished? Take a look at the bombed out buildings in Iraq which withstood repeated bomb and missile attacks and yet remained standing.

Posted Image

Posted Image


Posted Image






KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#966    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:14 PM

View PostStundie, on 01 March 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Sorry but those people at GZ witnessed it. Sitting behind a keyboard repeating yourself is not evidence they are wrong....lol


They witnessed molten metal, which does not automatically translate into molten steel.

Quote

I know, all estimates.

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.
http://911research.w...groundzero1.htm


That was printed in error because other  reports said from 400 degrees to 1800 degrees, not 2800 degrees.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#967    Hasina

Hasina

    Maximillion Hotpocket Puckershuttle

  • Member
  • 3,046 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2012

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:20 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 01 March 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

[/size]

They witnessed molten metal, which does not automatically translate into molten steel.



That was printed in error because other  reports said from 400 degrees to 1800 degrees, not 2800 degrees.
Sorry, I just have to add this: Nothing's 'printed in error' when it comes to conspiracy theories, it's part of the conspiracy! That's why conspiracies will always win out against actual evidence, cause their evidence is 'covered up'.

Posted Image

~MEH~


#968    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 01 March 2013 - 06:43 PM

View PostHasina, on 01 March 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Sorry, I just have to add this: Nothing's 'printed in error' when it comes to conspiracy theories, it's part of the conspiracy! That's why conspiracies will always win out against actual evidence, cause their evidence is 'covered up'.

Check it out.

Quote

What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

http://www.nist.gov/...s_wtctowers.cfm

In addition:

Quote


Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse.

http://www.nist.gov/...s_wtctowers.cfm

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

In other words, structural engineers who inspected the WTC steel found no evidence to support the melted steel claims. I  also provided the aerial temperature infrared images and readings which did not depict temperatures reaching the melting point of steel..

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 March 2013 - 06:48 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#969    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,720 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 01 March 2013 - 09:05 PM

Im sure we will keep this thread until all the Cows are tipped,and E.T calls Home,and the Dallas Cowboys win a Super Bowl ! :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#970    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 02 March 2013 - 10:49 PM

skyeagle409 said:

They witnessed molten metal, which does not automatically translate into molten steel.
Some refer to as molten metal and everyone else says it's steel

The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up.
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.

It certainly doesn't translate into molten aluminum.......lol

Unless steel beams are made of aluminum?? :blink:

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

#971    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,005 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:11 PM

It is not a rational process.... :cry:


#972    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:46 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 02 March 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

It is not a rational process.... :cry:
Oh I think he truly believes it is a rational process.

He says he works with metals, so I wonder if he's been working with mercury?? lol

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

#973    shrooma

shrooma

    proud Yorkshireman.

  • Member
  • 3,243 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013

Posted 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM

seriously, you people are still running this sh!t around?
do you not have jobs?
a social life?
girlfriends?
drug habits....?
there's a world outside y'know, away from your keyboreds.
try it.
you might like it.

sometimes, your signature is worth nothing at all.
.

#974    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:26 AM

View PostStundie, on 02 March 2013 - 10:49 PM, said:

Some refer to as molten metal and everyone else says it's steel [/size]

Everyone else you mention are not metallurgist, which explains why structural engineers who examined the WTC steel have stated for the record they found no evidence of melted steel at ground zero nor at the salvage yards where WTC steel was taken.

Quote

The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up.

The WTC fires were not capable of creating temperatures needed to melt steel.

Quote

.
In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel.

There was molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, which was evident by the silvery droplets. The aluminum dripped upon the steel beams and the lifting of a steel beam clearly indicates the steel beam was not in a molten state at all.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#975    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,737 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 03 March 2013 - 06:32 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 02 March 2013 - 11:11 PM, said:

It is not a rational process.... :cry:

Common sense dictates that if a steel beam, which was described as cherry red, is not even close to the melting point of steel. Question is: how do you lift molten steel with a grapple?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX