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This topic has been archived.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

#916    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:41 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting.
john cole's thermite experiment reprodcued the damage seen in the photo below, so your statement "your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting" is clearly false.
Posted Image

Edited by Little Fish, 27 February 2013 - 10:42 PM.


#917    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:44 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 February 2013 - 10:41 PM, said:

john cole's thermite experiment reprodcued the damage seen in the photo below, so your statement "your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting" is clearly false.
Posted Image

Once again, there is no evidence the material was in a molten state nor is it evidience that thermite was used, and in fact, far from it.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 February 2013 - 10:44 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#918    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:53 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 February 2013 - 10:29 PM, said:

john cole did the experiment using thermite and he gets near identical results. but you know this already.

His experiment does not prove that thermite was used in the collapse of the WTC buildings. In fact, there was no way to transport many truckloads of thermite above the 70th floors and the impacts of the two B-767s would have dislodged any huge amount of thermite from structural columns.

Quote

...you know this is false. the john cole experiment shows it. what evidence do you have to doubt cole's experiments?

His experiement is flawed in trying to prove that thermite was used in the WTC buildings.

Quote

...no, i accept that torches were used to cut columns in the cleanup.

Now, you know how solidfied molten steel was formed on the columns.

Quote

...but torches do not produce the jagged cut in the first picture, nor the thinning of the beam in the second photo. so that's you all washed up with no evidence again.


You might want to rethink again.

Posted Image

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#919    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 27 February 2013 - 10:59 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

Once again, there is no evidence the material was in a molten state nor is it evidience that thermite was used, and in fact, far from it.
the report says intergranular melting. the operative word being "melting". is there a difference in your mind between "molten" and "melting"?

Edited by Little Fish, 27 February 2013 - 11:00 PM.


#920    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:01 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 February 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

the report says intergranular melting. the operative word being "melting". is there a difference in your mind between "molten" and "metling"?

Since when it that evidence of thermite in light of the fact that torches were used during the clean-up?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#921    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:15 PM



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#922    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:27 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 27 February 2013 - 10:59 PM, said:

the report says intergranular melting. the operative word being "melting". is there a difference in your mind between "molten" and "melting"?

Do you know what the lack of barium nitrate in the rubble of the WTC buildings mean? On another note:



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#923    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:33 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

They are not metallurgist, which once again brings us back to my original  comment about firefighters.
WOW!! Another excellent pantomime debunking of your pathetic pantomime strawman....lol...It bring us back to your fantasies again.....lol

I think you will find at no point do I claim that fire fighters are metallurgist and your debunking is absurd and delusional.

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

With the large amount of aluminum that was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of the B-767s that struck them, and add to the fact that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but not steel, it should be of no real mystery that any molten metal they saw was nor steel. In other words, there was nothing there to produce molten steel at ground zero.
And again here you go off to la-la land where you have no idea what the temperatures were, even though we have been over this many pages and we know that there are surface temperatures but your claim they were not hot enough is not supported by any evidence and are properly debunked by evidence from eyewitness who claim they saw molten steel/girders/beams.

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

All you have to do is to produced evidence of a catalytic reaction that can produce molten steel other than from torches from clean-up crews, short of that, you have no case.
I have no case....lol Except evidence from people who were at GZ...lol

All you have produced is panto debunking of thinking you know better sitting behind a keyboard dismissing evidence because they are not metallurgists.

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

Which brings us back to the argument that firefighters and others who are not experts in identifying molten metal nor are they metallurgist.
Oh dear! Which part of this do you not understand.....lol

You do not need to be a metallurgist to witness molten steel/beams/girders, it is easily identifiable when it cools down, it was numerous witnesses from firefighters to professors, making your point moot.

It would be like saying that multiple people witnessed the attack by a lioness and they are wrong as they aren't capable of recognising it, therefore it was leopard because you've worked with big cats for 40 years. lol

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

#924    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM

View PostStundie, on 27 February 2013 - 11:33 PM, said:

WOW!! Another excellent pantomime debunking of your pathetic pantomime strawman....lol...It bring us back to your fantasies again.....lol

Actually, not. The fact that barium nitrate was not found within the rubble of the WTC buidings should have convinced the conspiracist to throw out their thermite theory.

Quote

I think you will find at no point do I claim that fire fighters are metallurgist and your debunking is absurd and delusional.

I am glad that you agree that the firefighters were not metallurgist, because it proves my point they were not in a position to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum, hence they were in error when they said that they saw molten steel when in fact, they saw no such thing.

Quote

You do not need to be a metallurgist to witness molten steel/beams/girders, it is easily identifiable when it cools down, it was numerous witnesses from firefighters to professors, making your point moot

On the contrary, they are not experts nor in a position to identify molten aluminum drippings on steel columns as such and remember, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. The molten flow from WTC2 proved beyond a doubt the molten flow was NOT steel, and the cooled silvery droplets underlines that point.

So once again, waiting for evidence that supports your case.

Edited by skyeagle409, 27 February 2013 - 11:54 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#925    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 27 February 2013 - 11:58 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

You do not need to be a metallurgist to witness molten steel/beams/girders, it is easily identifiable when it cools down, it was numerous witnesses from firefighters to professors, making your point moot.

It would be like saying that multiple people witnessed the attack by a lioness and they are wrong as they aren't capable of recognising it, therefore it was leopard because you've worked with big cats for 40 years. lol

Better take another look.

Posted Image




Edited by skyeagle409, 28 February 2013 - 12:00 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#926    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:43 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

Actually, not. The fact that barium nitrate was not found within the rubble of the WTC buidings should have convinced the conspiracist to throw out their thermite theory.
I know lets do some more panto debunking by brining up barium nitrate.

Even though there is no evidence of anyone ever looking or testing for barium nitrate, is enough to convince me that you are building a grand strawman character in this new panto debunking production of the Wizard of Oz.

Do I play the part of the Wicked Witch and so I can set fire to the scarecrow you've built? lol Are you Dorothy, who chucks a bucket of water over your scarecrow, which splashes me and I melt away....arrrgghh!!! lol

Sorry but this panto sucks! lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

I am glad that you agree that the firefighters were not metallurgist, because it proves my point they were not in a position to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum, hence they were in error when they said that they saw molten steel when in fact, they saw no such thing.
Why are you glad I agree that firefighters were not metallurigsts when I have never said or implied it, when it is obvious to anyone that fire fighters fight fires and metallurgiusts examine metals, proving that you are having this argument not with me, but the voices in your head which you are projecting onto me.

Just because they are not metallugists doesn't prove that there not in a position to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum, when they were in the best position available, actually at GZ and as you keep forgetting that you do not need to be a metallugist to identifhy molten steel/beams/girders.

Hence there is no error when they said they saw molten steel when in fact they saw molten steel, because you have no evidence they were wrong. Nothing, not a single quote from anyone at GZ going.... "oh wait a minute, its not steel, thats aluminium!" lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

On the contrary, they are not experts nor in a position to identify molten aluminum drippings on steel columns as such and remember, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.
You do not need to be an expert to identift molten steel and the temperatures ust have been hot enough cause they saw molten steel/beams/girders, not one, but multiple witnesses.

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

The molten flow from WTC2 proved beyond a doubt the molten flow was NOT steel, and the cooled silvery droplets underlines that point.
Only in your head...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:42 PM, said:

So once again, waiting for evidence that supports your case.
What case is that? That there was molten steel at GZ. The eyewitnesses are my evidence and you have nothing to counter it other than they are not experts, even you don't have to be if you see molten steel/beams/girders.

And even though one of them is a professor who was obviously the best person to examine some of the steel at GZ, who states that he saw molten girders isn't expert enough? Only and only a metallugist is capable and even though you are not one, you know that it's molten aluminium.

Your argument is about as strong as girder 79 in WTC7.......lol

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

#927    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:52 AM

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

I know lets do some more panto debunking by brining up barium nitrate.

That doesn't work for you!  The lack of barium nitrate at ground zero has trashed the conspiracist claim that thermite was used.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#928    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:53 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 27 February 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

Better take another look.

Posted Image



Panto debunking on a youtube video??...lol

Youtube videos denying pools of molten steel/beams/girders does not counter the statements and eyewitness accounts of multiple people and professions stating on record there was molten steel.

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

#929    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,720 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:02 AM

View PostStundie, on 28 February 2013 - 12:53 AM, said:

Panto debunking on a youtube video??...lol

Youtube videos denying pools of molten steel/beams/girders does not counter the statements and eyewitness accounts of multiple people and professions stating on record there was molten steel.

On the contrary, without temperatures needed to melt steel at ground zero, what they saw were pools of molten aluminum because temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum. With abundance of aluminum present in the WTC buildings and used in the construction of the B-767s, all it takes is common sense to understand why they saw molten aluminum and not molten steel.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#930    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:05 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 28 February 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

That doesn't work for you!  The lack of barium nitrate at ground zero has trashed the conspiracist claim that thermite was used.
Panto debunking doesn't work for me, cause I don't do panto...lol Who said thermite was used? Is this like the time you claimed I said that fire fighters were metallugists but then the reality was your head got confused and you deluded yourself that I had said or implied it, when nothing could have been further from the truth?

I think this is where your misunderstandings are? You can't differentiate between "thermite was used" with "thermite was possibly used"....lol

And I do not see any evidence of barium nitrates ever being looked for it to be found and are firefighers experts in detecting barium nitrates?

So in honour of your pitchs of panto debunking, let me show you my panto debunking....

Firefighters are chemists and therefore are not qualified to detect  or could easily confuse barium nitrate with baking soda, salt, dust, cocaine, crush paracetomol and lemon sherbert. Therefore the firefighters who never said they saw barium nitrate actually saw it, but they mistook it for baking soda. I'm sure if I found some picture of barium nitrates and tons of other white powdery substance, you couldn't tell cause you are not an expert chemist like me with 2000 years of experience.

Therefore you are wrong....I'll await the "Oh no I'm not response!" to my panto....lol

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