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This topic has been archived.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

#331    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 04 February 2013 - 09:37 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 04 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

You do not know and cannot prove how much time was used in prepping the buildings for demolition.  Neither can I.  We both speculate.

It has been proven that explosives had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#332    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 04 February 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

BR.

Pools of molten metal is to be expected.

Of course swanny cannot validate his theory that it is molten aluminum, as nobody made any scientific investigation to the make up of the pools of molten metal.  I honestly don't blame him.

Neither can the truthers validate that it was molten steel without testing it.


It is all speculation.

People were working in those buildings up until the time of collapse.  CD companies take months gutting buildings to prep for a demolition.  Did any employee that worked that day notice interior gutting going on all floors?

You've missed a few posts Raptor.

Swan accepted that Thomas Cahill and the DELTA group were involved in monitoring the air at WTC weeks after the attack.  The air samples collected by them show ferrous particles, among others.  Right off hand, I don't think aluminum was mentioned.  Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there.  I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

Out of all the metals present at WTC, what do you suppose the ratio is of the various metals?  Would it be safe to say 90% steel, or would it be even higher?

And riddle me this Raptor, why is molten metal to be expected?  For a collapse begun by jetfuel and gravity, after those jetfuel fires had burned for an hour or more, why is molten metal to be expected?

Considering that there are no other examples of modern steel buildings having collapsed from fire, and that molten metals were not found in those modern steel buildings that had caught fire, upon what precedent do you claim that molten metal is to be expected?


#333    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 16,641 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:00 PM

Dont forget all the melted Gold in the basements !
:gun:

This is a Work in Progress!

#334    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,777 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there.  I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.
A lot of metal-working was done on the site, metal working produces these particles, why do you have a problem?

Quote

Out of all the metals present at WTC, what do you suppose the ratio is of the various metals?  Would it be safe to say 90% steel, or would it be even higher?
Steel doesn't melt at normal building fire temperatures.  Aluminium does.

Quote

And riddle me this Raptor, why is molten metal to be expected?  For a collapse begun by jetfuel and gravity, after those jetfuel fires had burned for an hour or more, why is molten metal to be expected?
Because a large building will contain a lot of material that can burn, and in the conditions of a debris pile, it can burn for weeks.  The opera-house fire I mentioned that lasted fifteen days happened back in the 19th century.

Quote

Considering that there are no other examples of modern steel buildings having collapsed from fire, and that molten metals were not found in those modern steel buildings that had caught fire, upon what precedent do you claim that molten metal is to be expected?
What makes you think no other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire?  Here's a recent example of the many:
http://www.thisissta...tail/story.html

What makes you think molten aluminium is unusual in a building fire?
http://www.alsecco.c...irtec_Stone.pdf

Edited by flyingswan, 05 February 2013 - 05:14 PM.

"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- )

#335    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 February 2013 - 05:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Swan accepted that Thomas Cahill and the DELTA group were involved in monitoring the air at WTC weeks after the attack.  The air samples collected by them show ferrous particles, among others.  Right off hand, I don't think aluminum was mentioned.  Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there.  I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

Considering the temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, but not steel, it should be of no surprise.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#336    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 05 February 2013 - 07:03 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

You've missed a few posts Raptor.

Been trying to keep up after being gone a month.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Swan accepted that Thomas Cahill and the DELTA group were involved in monitoring the air at WTC weeks after the attack.  The air samples collected by them show ferrous particles, among others.  Right off hand, I don't think aluminum was mentioned.  Swan blames the presence of iron particles and silicates on the cutting and welding that was done there.  I don't find that particularly persuasive, considering the many eye witness accounts reporting molten metal.

I do not understand why you think the presence of molten metal and iron particles are of heavy importance.  Clean up cutters were used after the collapse to clear debris.

The WTC complex was also clad in aluminium, lots of it, so the presence of molten metals are not a surprise.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Out of all the metals present at WTC, what do you suppose the ratio is of the various metals?  Would it be safe to say 90% steel, or would it be even higher?
Sure, lets go with 90% steel, I still fail to see the point that it is not possible the molten metal can be molten glass or even molten aluminium.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Can you identify what each of these 3 photos show?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

And riddle me this Raptor, why is molten metal to be expected?  For a collapse begun by jetfuel and gravity, after those jetfuel fires had burned for an hour or more, why is molten metal to be expected?

2 words, hydrocarbon fires.  

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 02:39 PM, said:

Considering that there are no other examples of modern steel buildings having collapsed from fire, and that molten metals were not found in those modern steel buildings that had caught fire, upon what precedent do you claim that molten metal is to be expected?

Actually, the point that steel buildings do not collapsed based on fire alone is incomplete.  What you seem to keep forgetting is that a fully fueled plane travelling at over 400 mph impacted the building causing damage, fire took care of the rest.  Has any modern day steel building that DID NOT collapse due to fire have a 767 slam in them?  So to take the plane impact out of the equation and claim that steel structures do not collapse due to fire alone and then claim impossibility is actually quite hilarious to boot.

At what temperature range does steel start to lose its strength?  Have you looked inside a warehouse before and seen the differences of support between a web based I beam support design and a steel truss support design?  The difference in thickness of the beams are hardly comparable.  The reasoning why the desginers went with the steel truss design was due to having the outer structural beams attached to the core columns without needing the use of secondary support columns, obviously maximize office space without having to deal with columns running through the entire floor taking up space.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#337    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:20 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 05 February 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

A lot of metal-working was done on the site, metal working produces these particles, why do you have a problem?

Steel doesn't melt at normal building fire temperatures.  Aluminium does.
Because a large building will contain a lot of material that can burn, and in the conditions of a debris pile, it can burn for weeks.  The opera-house fire I mentioned that lasted fifteen days happened back in the 19th century.
What makes you think no other steel buildings have collapsed due to fire?  Here's a recent example of the many:
http://www.thisissta...tail/story.html

What makes you think molten aluminium is unusual in a building fire?
http://www.alsecco.c...irtec_Stone.pdf

This was not a normal building fire Swan.  Normal building fires do not bring the buildings down at nearly free fall rates, do not create molten metal, and do not leave simmering pools of molten metal.  There are many other characteristics of these particular events never experienced before.  That is a very poor choice of words, normal building fire.

I'm perfectly happy to accept that it might have been molten aluminum, if only you could make the case.  If only you could validate your theory.  So far, you have not.  You do not even attempt to discuss what ratio of iron to aluminum might have been present, so that your theory might take its first step.  So far Swan, all you offer is maybe this or maybe that.

Not persuasive in the least. :no:


#338    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:29 PM

Raptor

I think the presence of molten metal is significant because in order for metal to be made molten and remain molten, and offer air samples suggestive of boiling metal, a very large amount of energy must be consumed.  For example, the electric bill for any foundry must be pretty darn high.

All we have here, according to the official story, is jetfuel burned up top the building, about 800 feet away from the basements, and gravity.  I doubt any operating foundry get melt steel and keep it that way for weeks by merely burning jetfuel 800 feet from the metal.  Just does not pass the common sense smell test.

Rest of the post Raptor, very very stale. Not at all persuasive.  We both know it, I suspect.  A jetfuel fire up in the air by 800 feet or more, some undetermined quantity and quality of office furniture that meets UL fire code, and you're going to have molten metal for weeks and hot spots visible from satellites?  Puh-leeze. :whistle:


#339    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:45 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

Raptor

All we have here, according to the official story, is jetfuel burned up top the building, about 800 feet away from the basements, and gravity.

I am only going to address this part of your post and will come back tomorrow to deal with the rest as this really made me scratch my head profusely.

Are you sure the official story only said jetfuel and gravity?  Nothing about a plane impacting the towers?

Are you sure about that?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#340    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,958 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 05 February 2013 - 10:47 PM

Sure Raptor, sure.  Yessir, the OCT has airplanes impacting the towers at about the 800 foot mark.

Wow, I feel so much better now! :tsu:


#341    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 05 February 2013 - 11:56 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 10:20 PM, said:

This was not a normal building fire...

It was enough to bring down the WTC buildings.

Quote

Normal building fires do not bring the buildings down at nearly free fall rates,...

Don't tell that to architects and civil engineers because they won't believe you. After all,they've stated for the record that fires brought down the WTC buildings and they support the official story that fires brought down the WTC buildings. :yes:

Quote

...donot create molten metal,

Course not, which throws cold water on your claim that molten steel was found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Quote

and do not leave simmering pools of molten metal.

Since temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, but not steel, there is no mystery the molten metal was aluminum.

Quote

There are many other characteristics of these particular events never experienced before.

Let's take a look at your comment. How many B-767s slammed into buildings at over 500 mph before the 911 attacks?

Quote

I'm perfectly happy to accept that it might have been molten aluminum,...

You have not other choice if you want to accept reality.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#342    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:05 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 05 February 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

A jetfuel fire up in the air by 800 feet or more, some undetermined quantity and quality of office furniture that meets UL fire code,...

You better take another look.

Quote


In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9.


The fire was fueled by office materials only.


Posted Image


Quote

...you're going to have molten metal for weeks and hot spots visible from satellites?  

That's reality! :yes:

Quote

Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

QUEENSBURY — Firefighters were still dousing hot spots Monday at a blaze that began more than two days ago in warehouses rented by SCA Tissue. "It's the biggest fire in our history as far as a big commercial building," said West Glens Falls Fire Chief Mike Gordon.

http://www.timesunio...two-4250472.php


Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

The fire that broke out earlier this week at the Bruce Church produce packing sheds will continue to smolder for the next couple of days and produce some light smoke, but there are no longer any flames coming from the site.

http://www.yumasun.c...l#ixzz2K4b4zHAl


Hobby Store Still Smoldering After Saturday's Fire

Lynchburg, VA - The remains of The Collector's Lair were still smoldering on Monday. Officials still do not have a cause, but confirmed the fire started in the basement of the building. Investigators say it will probably continue smolder for days until they can get to the bottom of the 12 feet of rubble. "A little hard to see it go," said frequent shopper of "Collector's Lair," Chris Morris.

Locals like Morris have been stopping by to get one last look. "There's a lot of stuff in there. I'm not surprised it's burning this long," said Morris.
http://www.wset.com/...-saturdays-fire


Officials say Caldwell plant fire smoldered for days

Firefighters work at the scene of a structure fire as a portion of the Land O’ Lakes Purina Feed building collapses in the background, Sunday evening in Caldwell.

http://www.idahopres...e=image&photo=1


Fire at Yuma-area packing shed to smolder for days

YUMA, AZ (AP) -
A fire that destroyed a group of produce packing sheds east of Yuma is expected to smolder for days as piles of burned cardboard cools and foam building insulation continues to send up smoke.

http://www.kpho.com/...molder-for-days

Great Chicago Fire

Once the fire had ended, the smoldering remains were still too hot for a survey of the damage to be completed for days.

http://en.wikipedia....at_Chicago_Fire


Edited by skyeagle409, 06 February 2013 - 12:25 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#343    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:17 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

On the contrary, common sense refuted your false claims. :yes:
You are fooling no one but yourself i'm afraid.

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

On the contrary, he has performed thousands.
Again more denial.

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

What did the video say?
Nothing much,

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Did you call his company? Remember,Brent Blandchard is a leading world authority on demolition implosions.
You might believe his marketing spiel but the fact is that he has never demolished a building.

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Considering that demolition companies around the world depend upon Brent Blanchard for expert advice and detailed data information on demolition implosions, what more is there to say? What you have said makes no sense whatsoever!
The fact is that all he and company do his document implosions, they do not perform the demolition themselves. Hence they are called Protec Documentation Services. The clue is in the bolded bit.

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Apparently, you have no idea what you about. :no:
Everyone is clueless except you

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Why use kerosene when an over is available?
|Oh hadn't you heard that fire is the best method of melting, cutting and weakening steel. More effective that thermite or RDX apparently.

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

I already have. :yes: You missed it because you are not in the habit of adding 2 + 2 together correctly.
I think you are looking for things which don't exist and make them up in your head. Blanchard doesn't do the demolitions.

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

#344    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:23 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 February 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

On the contrary, Protec, Inc., is the world-leading company consist of building engineers, technicians and demolition experts and look what you posted. :w00t: :lol:

And, Brent Blachard, a demolition experts, is a leading world authority on demolition implosions. :yes:


Those facts CLEARLY, exposes the weakess of your claims, or should I say, your position. :yes:
Weakness of my claims? haahaha!! That Blanchard hasn't demolished a building? There is nothing on the Protec website that says they or Brent do demolitions.

Don't why you are trolling and spamming but it won't change the fact you are wrong.

Edited by Stundie, 06 February 2013 - 12:24 AM.

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

#345    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,667 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:27 AM

View PostStundie, on 06 February 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

You are fooling no one but yourself i'm afraid.

Nope!! Science and common sense have already proven my case. :yes:

Quote

u might believe his marketing spiel but the fact is that he has never demolished a building.

How amusing!! Now, for my admission. I have been in touch with demolition experts and his company, and they have confirmed that Brent Blanchard has personally been involved in demolition implosions. How many buildings demolition did they confirm for Brent  Blanchard?

A. 1 demolition

B. 100 demolitions

C. 500 demolitions

D. Well over 1 thousand

Answer: D.

Now, you know one reason why Brent Blanchard is one of the top demolition experts in the whole world! :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409, 06 February 2013 - 01:02 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX