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This topic has been archived.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

#136    turbonium

turbonium

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,271 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2005

Posted 19 January 2013 - 10:45 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 January 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

This is what it takes to prepare a building



It took many months of pre-weakening and preparation just to collapse a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX. for demolition, and that was done at, or near ground level.

The amazing '9/11' method is so much simpler, isn't it?

All you need is some random damage and random fires, and you'll get the same result!!

No need for precisely timed, carefully placed charges. You don't need months of planning, either. A few hours will suffice.

Sheesh. What a crock...


#137    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,988 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 19 January 2013 - 02:13 PM

View Postjoc, on 18 January 2013 - 10:34 PM, said:

Oh, I certainly think they can.  Fires burning for a long time like that don't have a constant temperature...the more stuff catches fire the hotter the fire gets, the hotter the fire gets, the more stuff catches on fire, heats up the metal, heats up the metal...we are talking incredible temperatures which of course could melt steel...and please...bodies cremated...how about spontaneous combustion where all is left of the body is a small pile of ashes?

Are you pulling my leg, or do you really think that? :unsure2:


#138    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006

Posted 19 January 2013 - 03:31 PM

View PostQ24, on 18 January 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

Was it not your implication that there exists a detailed study?

Not in the same class as your direct claim that it wasn't.  Quibble as much as you like, you made claims about a document you hadn't read and then accused me of exactly what you yourself had just done.

Quote

Your question is easily answered.  The steel analysed was obviously not the area that had been fully corroded/melted (i.e. impossible since that was where the holes and missing steel existed); it was from the periphery or residual effect of where the thermite contacted the steelwork and did most damage and therefore is found to have experienced lower temperatures.  Had the material from the holes and missing steel been tested (you remember all those reports of molten, specifically steel), it may well have been found to have experienced thermite-like temperatures.
I see, it's another of those areas where Q24's imagined technical expertise overrides that of everyone who's actually done any work on the subject.  I didn't ask the question to be fobbed off with your personal fantasies, I was hoping for some actual evidence that thermite could have that effect on steel without raising its temperature anywhere near to thermite's reaction temperature.  Just heating steel certainly doesn't have that effect, you need the presence of sulphur, so why should the steel have come into contact with the small proportion of sulphur that's in thermite but not with the thermite itself?

As to molten steel, you still have not produced any evidence of temperatures high enough to produce this.  All you have is reports from eyewitnesses who would not have been able to distinguish molten steel from any other molten metal.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#139    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:29 PM

View Postturbonium, on 19 January 2013 - 10:45 AM, said:

The amazing '9/11' method is so much simpler, isn't it? All you need is some random damage and random fires, and you'll get the same result!!

Not likely at all. After all, a half of ton of explosive planted in WTC1 in 1993 failed to destroy even one structural column, much less caused its collapse.

Quote

No need for precisely timed, carefully placed charges.

How are you going to get 100 workers to spend many months cutting structural columns and placing thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives more than 700 feet above street level and do so without anyone noticing? In fact, how would thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives not detonate after aircraft crashed into the area where  911 conspiracist claimed, explosives were planted? Reality is, there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings during the 911 attacks and no bomb explosions were seen, heard nor detected on seismic monitors. To sum that up, you were simply duped as other 911 conspiracist were duped by that hoaxed video of WTC7.

Quote

You don't need months of planning, either. A few hours will suffice.

Where did  you get that false idea? It took about half a year to prepare a bridge in Corpus  Christi, TX for demolition and look what you posted. All you are telling us is that you no nothing about the demolition process. Simply making things up as you go because you have seen too many Hollywood action movies doesn't cut it.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 January 2013 - 05:35 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#140    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:39 PM

View Postcoldboiled, on 19 January 2013 - 08:27 AM, said:

I've been reading up on this 9/11 thing and just following what's going on. I think I should step in with the fire thing. Here's an example. Take a 44 gallon drum. Cut a hole in the bottom. Put a grate a third of the way up. Throw in wood or any fuel and light. Watch the drum glow red. Now cut smaller holes thus increasing the speed of the air flow like a gas torch or a furnace and watch the drum melt. Can it not be said the same principles apply to the fire in the rubble? Correct me if I'm wrong that's just my two cents worth. In saying that it does seem to me some involvement wether it be the knowledge of the pending attacks or anything of the sort would warrant further investigations in honor of those lost.   Hope my post makes sense I suck at spell check.

You might want to read post # 132.

Quote

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire.


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#141    Tmars78

Tmars78

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 185 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2006

Posted 19 January 2013 - 05:57 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 January 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

Not likely at all. After all, a half of ton of explosive planted in WTC1 in 1993 failed to destroy even one structural column, much less caused its collapse.



How are you going to get 100 workers to spend many months cutting structural columns and placing thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives more than 700 feet above street level and do so without anyone noticing? In fact, how would thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives not detonate after aircraft crashed into the area where  911 conspiracist claimed, explosives were planted? Reality is, there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings during the 911 attacks and no bomb explosions were seen, heard nor detected on seismic monitors. To sum that up, you were simply duped as other 911 conspiracist were duped by that hoaxed video of WTC7.



Where did  you get that false idea? It took about half a year to prepare a bridge in Corpus  Christi, TX for demolition and look what you posted. All you are telling us is that you no nothing about the demolition process. Simply making things up as you go because you have seen too many Hollywood action movies doesn't cut it.

He was half serious, half sarcastic. You are saying it takes months of planning to properly demolish a building, and he is saying why do all of that, when all you need to do is fly a plane into it, and within a few hours its done. Would seem like a waste of time to do all of that planning to demolish it, right?

Now before you think I agree with him, I am just saying I understand what he is saying.


#142    coldboiled

coldboiled

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2009

Posted 19 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

For the iron oxidisation method you would need a lot of rust. Your talking about a ship full there I think it far more like a furnace action then anything but each to there own then.


#143    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:05 PM

View PostTmars78, on 19 January 2013 - 05:57 PM, said:

He was half serious, half sarcastic. You are saying it takes months of planning to properly demolish a building, and he is saying why do all of that, when all you need to do is fly a plane into it, and within a few hours its done. Would seem like a waste of time to do all of that planning to demolish it, right?

That is right. As it was, fires that resulted from the impacts were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. No explosive of any kind was used as many 911 conspiracist have claimed and I have consistently told them why. I might add that the aircraft were not flown into the WTC buildings under remote control.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 January 2013 - 08:10 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#144    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:17 PM

View Postcoldboiled, on 19 January 2013 - 06:22 PM, said:

For the iron oxidisation method you would need a lot of rust. Your talking about a ship full there I think it far more like a furnace action then anything but each to there own then.

There was a lot of steel lying around for weeks.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#145    coldboiled

coldboiled

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2009

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:40 PM

So steel girders and swarf is comparable to an entire ships hull of iron particulate. Is that what you are saying. I'm not here to argue. Just trying to get an understanding through all the Miss information etc.

Edited by coldboiled, 19 January 2013 - 08:42 PM.


#146    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:42 PM

View Postcoldboiled, on 19 January 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

So steel girders an swarf is comparable to an entire ships hull or iron particulate. Is that what you are saying.

How many tons of steel are used to construct a typical ship? How many tons of steel were used to construct WTC1?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#147    coldboiled

coldboiled

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2009

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:44 PM

Yes but are you not talking about ships carrying iron ore? Which in that form oxidises far faster then a processed steel beam

I've said my bit and will keep out of it and continue reading. Proven rite or wrong 9/11 deserves further investigation

Edited by coldboiled, 19 January 2013 - 08:50 PM.


#148    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,988 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 19 January 2013 - 08:46 PM

Would that be the Edmund Fitzgerald?


#149    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

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

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:28 PM

View Postcoldboiled, on 19 January 2013 - 08:44 PM, said:

Yes but are you not talking about ships carrying iron ore? Which in that form oxidises far faster then a processed steel beam.

There was tons of steel exposed to the elements for weeks. Many people were not aware that you can start fires with ordinary steel wool.

Quote

I've said my bit and will keep out of it and continue reading. Proven rite or wrong 9/11 deserves further investigation

What can they uncover after more than 11 years  that is going to change anything? In addition, American Airlines and United Airlines have reported the loss of their aircraft during the 911 attacks and we know the United States received many warnings of an impending attack by Muslim terrorist, and some of those warnings included the use of airliners as weapons. Nothing in those warnings, some by Muslim countries, that implicated the US government.

We know that explosives were not used and we know that all four airliners were hijacked by Muslim terrorist. We can add the admissions of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed regarding their responsibilty in the 911 attacks.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#150    coldboiled

coldboiled

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2009

Posted 19 January 2013 - 09:43 PM

Perhaps the incompetence of a certain few who let this happen and should be. Prosecuted is all I'm saying