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This topic has been archived.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

#586    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:31 PM

View PostStundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:17 PM, said:

Yes, there opinion based on what they witnessed first hand...i.e. fact.

Not sure which part you didn't understand.....lol

I don't think you understand the differences between opinion and fact.

Quote

An opinion is a belief; it is normally subjective, meaning that it can vary based on a person's perspective, emotions, or individual understanding of something


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

#587    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 13 February 2013 - 08:40 PM

View PostStundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Where did he say it melted into a molten substance?? :blink:
No, that is panto debunking because numerous people at GZ said they saw molten steel including firefighters who would have cooled it down and been able to work out what they had just cooled down.

Its ain;t rocket science or mettallurgy, its common sense...lol
Who said "that there used to be a girder."...lol

I was analyzing your own statement Stundie.

View PostStundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Its hilarious that you panto debunkers invent points or arguments which don't exist.......lol
Not as hilarious as trying to fathom out how numerous witnesses who said they sat steel, actually saw aluminium......lol
And you have EVEN LESS, that it was aluminium.....hahahahaha!!

Other than eye witness reports based on opinion on what it was, where is your evidence that it was steel?  Do you have a scientific study on the molten substance?

So basically, all you have are opinions and no facts.

You seem to want to take eye witness reports as infallible information Stundie.  Are we supposed to take eye witness reports at face value?

http://www.innocence...ntification.php
http://www.scientifi...he-eyes-have-it

So go ahead and believe eye witness accounts on face value all you want.  For me to give them any credence at all, I will need to see hard evidence as well.

View PostStundie, on 13 February 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

Nothing at all other than some ridiculous internet warrior who claims he knows better..lol

Keep tooting your own horn Stundie.

Your posting method and obvious attitude complex really makes your posts shine.

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

#588    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,511 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:14 PM

Seeing aluminum when there is none is very much like seeing a Boeing when there is none.  A common affliction in some parts. :innocent:


#589    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:27 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 February 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

Seeing aluminum when there is none...

But, you had already replied with this message.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 09 February 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

Cz

OK, I will accept that the 'sheathing' is aluminum...

http://amhistory.si....cord.asp?ID=104

We got your number!

Quote

is very much like seeing a Boeing when there is none.  A common affliction in some parts. :innocent:

The following photo of what is left of a Boeing you said, there was none.

Posted Image

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 09:37 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#590    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So exactly how are you so sure the temperatures were enough to melt steel?  
it is skyeagle that has stated dozens of times in the absolute that the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, yet he is unable to provide any evidence to his baseless assertion, but the evidence does suggest that the temperatures were high enough to melt steel.
you should be asking skyeagle how he knows what the maximum temperature was, since skyeagle is the one stating unjustifiable absolutes.

Quote

Nobody claimed molten aluminium, so obviously that makes it molten steel.
aluminium is a very distinctive household metal with the unique properties of low emissivity and high reflectivity which make it an easily identifiable metal even in a molten or post molten state. given that NO ONE reported molten aluminium and many reported "molten steel", "rivers of steel", etc, amongst which were experts such as engineers and firefighters, then the evidence leans to molten steel or at least unexpected temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Quote

1. Molten Glass
2. Molten Aluminium
3. Molten Steel
your trick question skirts around the pertinent question under discussion which is : what is the temperature of those vats pouring the molten materials, and were those temperatures to be expected at GZ without some accelerant like thermite.

maybe you could state the temperatures of those vats, and while you're at it state the temperature at which concrete melts.

Edited by Little Fish, 13 February 2013 - 09:40 PM.


#591    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:40 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

it is skyeagle that has stated dozens of times in the absolute that the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, yet he is unable to provide any evidence to his baseless assertion, but the evidence does suggest that the temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

Show that evidence for all to see. I have already posted the infrared images that proved my point. Conspiracist claimed that the material in the following photo is molten steel, but that is not steel in a molten state.

Posted Image


Now, let's take another look.

Quote

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.

http://pubs.usgs.gov...fr-01-0405.html

800 degrees comes nowhere near the temperatures needed to melt steel. Furthermore, 911 conspiracist did not know that many of the claims of molten steel was misreported.

Quote

Leslie Robertson

Robertson says he didn’t use the “molten steel” quote,

http://911myths.com/..._robertson.html

-----------------------------------------------------------

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

http://911myths.com/...lten_steel.html
Posted Image

Just a couple of examples where conspiracist failed to get at the heart of claims of molten steel, so I will reiterate that no one saw molten steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 10:01 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#592    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:02 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Show that evidence for all to see
molten concrete, fema appendix c, multiple expert eyewitnesses reporting flowing rivers of molten steel, iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.


#593    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:07 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.
watch this 1 minute clip and admit you made a mistake, robertson says "river of steel flowing"



#594    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:09 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 10:02 PM, said:

molten concrete Fema appendix c, multiple expert eyewitnesses reporting flowing rivers of molten steel,

Follow up on that story and you will see a problem.

Quote

...iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.

Ingredients of thermite was also contained in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Once again, thermite is not used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions because it is not effective nor capable of bringing down the WTC buildings especially when you consider the make-up of those buildings, which is another hint why thermite is not used by the demolition industry.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#595    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,105 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:12 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 10:07 PM, said:

watch this 1 minute clip and admit you made a mistake, robertson says "river of steel flowing"


You missed this part.

Quote

Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.


Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 10:12 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#596    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:18 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

it is skyeagle that has stated dozens of times in the absolute that the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, yet he is unable to provide any evidence to his baseless assertion, but the evidence does suggest that the temperatures were high enough to melt steel.
you should be asking skyeagle how he knows what the maximum temperature was, since skyeagle is the one stating unjustifiable absolutes.

I was not asking skyeagle.  I was asking Stundie.

Please Little Fish, do not purposefully redirect my question.

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

aluminium is a very distinctive household metal with the unique properties of low emissivity and high reflectivity which make it an easily identifiable metal even in a molten or post molten state. given that NO ONE reported molten aluminium and many reported "molten steel", "rivers of steel", etc, amongst which were experts such as engineers and firefighters, then the evidence leans to molten steel or at least unexpected temperatures high enough to melt steel.

All references to "molten steel" is based on occular observation.  Which I will repeat AGAIN for you in case you missed it, eye witness accounts are not infallible.

For it to be proved that molten steel is what was flowing underneath the rubble, the material should have undergone tests to come up with this conclusion.  Otherwise all we have are opinions.

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

your trick question skirts around the pertinent question under discussion which is : what is the temperature of those vats pouring the molten materials, and were those temperatures to be expected at GZ without some accelerant like thermite.

maybe you could state the temperatures of those vats, and while you're at it state the temperature at which concrete melts.

It was not a trick question Little Fish.  Had you taken the time to read what I was referring to, you would have realized how silly your mis-interpretation of my question was.

The context by which I asked Stundie to identify the 3 different molten material is based solely on his assertion that GZ witnesses are able to discern different molten material from each other by visual observation.  Which unfortunately he was not able to.  So how are we to say whether or not those at GZ that made the "molten steel" reference are 100% accurate what they saw was molten steel?

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

#597    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 17,775 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:31 PM

What part of Eye witness Di I miss? THe Towers were hit by Two Airliners,ant things came tumbling down,gravity Helped and we Lost many lifes that day !
Its not like it was magic. Did you all not watch that morning? :tu:

This is a Work in Progress!

#598    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:35 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 10:09 PM, said:

Follow up on that story and you will see a problem.
I see a problem with your's and your followers' story.

Quote

Ingredients of thermite was also contained in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Once again, thermite is not used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions because it is not effective nor capable of bringing down the WTC buildings especially when you consider the make-up of those buildings, which is another hint why thermite is not used by the demolition industry.
iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.

in your alice in wonderland world, the 2500 C steel melting temperature from thermite cannot bring down the wtc, but the much lower temperature from ordinary 250C fire can. I'm embarrassed for you.


#599    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:40 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 13 February 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:

in your alice in wonderland world, the 2500 C steel melting temperature from thermite cannot bring down the wtc,

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the amount of aluminum oxide found in testing of WTC dust samples.

Thanks

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

#600    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:48 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 10:40 PM, said:

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the amount of aluminum oxide found in testing of WTC dust samples.

Thanks
who do i send the bill to?