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This topic has been archived.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

#841    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:55 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

That won't work for you. :no:  The readings definitely were not taken of the Hudson river. :no:
What are you talking about now?? Hudson River?? lol

Post some evidence to support your silly assertions that the temperatures were not hot enough in the rubble or just admit, you self pwned again didn't you?? lol

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

#842    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:58 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

Since temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, but more than enough to melt aluminum, then what they saw was aluminum, which is clearly evident in the photos.



Not nearly enough to melt steel.
Jesus, its like dining with stupid...lol

Those are the satellite photos showing the SURFACE TEMPERATURES, not the temperatures in the rubble, which is the evidence you need to back up your assertion and prove there was molten steel, even though there was plenty of people who witnessed molten steel. lol

It's funny but sad watching you pretend these people don't exist or are mistaken when evidently, you are mistaken.......lol

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

#843    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:00 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

They were not trained to identify molten metal. :no:
You don't need to be trained to realise that when there is something molten metal, you cool it down and can work out what it was.

Besides, experts who have the relevant training say you are wrong internet warrior....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

Most likely aluminum, considering the many tons of aluminum used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the B-767, not to mention the flowing aluminum from WTC2.
Most likely steel, considering that there was an abudance of steel and people remember seeing molten girders and beams, which were made from steel last time I checked. lol

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

#844    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:16 AM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 01:55 AM, said:

What are you talking about now?? Hudson River?? lol

You did  not understand why I threw in the Hudson river because you are not paying attention. :no: Now, understand that the readings were taken of ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#845    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:18 AM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

You don't need to be trained to realise that when there is something molten metal,...

Okay, then tell us what metal is flowing from this WTC building,

Posted Image

Quote



May I remind you that Richard Gage and Seven Jones have both been discredited? And, I might add that American Institute of Architects and the Society of Civil Engineers have also trashed their claims.

Edited by skyeagle409, 19 February 2013 - 02:46 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#846    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:23 AM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

You don't need to be trained to realise that when there is something molten metal, you cool it down and can work out what it was.

Then, why are you arguing that the molten flow is molten steel when it fact, it's aluminum?

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#847    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:29 AM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 02:00 AM, said:

YBesides, experts who have the relevant training say you are wrong internet warrior....lol
Most likely steel, considering that there was an abudance of steel and people remember seeing molten girders and beams, which were made from steel last time I checked. lol

Not likely at all considering the temperatures were too low to melt steel but high enough to melt aluminum and weaken steel. Now, examined this video and tell us what evidence in this video proved that fire brought down WTC2.



Edited by skyeagle409, 19 February 2013 - 02:33 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#848    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:52 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 02:16 AM, said:

You did  not understand why I threw in the Hudson river because you are not paying attention. :no: Now, understand that the readings were taken of ground zero.
I don't think you understood why you threw in the hudson river?? :blink:

I understand the reading were taken of GZ, but what your 40 years of expertise fails to recognise is those images show the SURFACE temperature, not the temperature in the rubble. I know a rank amatuer like myself is having to school you on the difference between the surface temperature and the temperature under the rubble, but if you want to claim that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, using the surface temperature is inaccurate and doesn't prove that there was no molten steel.

When you consider the witnesses reported molten steel, not aluminium.....lol

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

#849    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:54 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

Okay, then tell us what metal is flowing from this WTC building,
Probably Steel....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 02:18 AM, said:

May I remind you that Richard Gage and Seven Jones have both been discredited? And, I might add that American Institute of Architects and the Society of Civil Engineers have also trashed their claims.
May I also remind you that you and your 40 years of expertise have been discredited too by a rank amatuer like me.

Another post of super fail.......lol

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

#850    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:59 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

Then, why are you arguing that the molten flow is molten steel when it fact, it's aluminum?
Its not fact it's aluminium as not a single person who witnessed the molten metal refer to it as steel.......lol

Not sure why you keep repeating yourself when there isn't a single piece of evidence to support your assertions that the eyewitnesses were wrong.

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

#851    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 19 February 2013 - 01:03 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 19 February 2013 - 02:29 AM, said:

Not likely at all considering the temperatures were too low to melt steel but high enough to melt aluminum and weaken steel.
Utter codswallop and you have no evidence to back up your assertion. It doesn't matter how many times you post the surface temperatures from the thermal image and the paint analysis, it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does posting 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the conversation...lol

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

#852    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,438 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 19 February 2013 - 02:36 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Dodge #4

There was no evidence that temperatures reached 2500 degrees or higher, but there is evidence that temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum.

That's really pretty funny Sky.

Land based thermal imaging devices trained on the fires as they burned in the first hour showed remarkably low temperatures.  Way too low to melt steel and perhaps not hot enough to even weaken steel.

However, satellite based thermal imaging DID show very high temperatures in spots, hot enough to melt steel.  Indeed, air samples collected and published show iron particles and silicate droplets that could have been caused only by boiling metals.  Swan and others claim the contaminated air came from welders and cutters on the site, but that is not really persuasive, all things considered.


#853    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:12 PM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

I don't think you understood why you threw in the hudson river?? :blink:

The answer is: to see if have been paying attention and the fact you asked that question shows that you are not paying attention at all.

Quote

I understand the reading were taken of GZ, but what your 40 years of expertise fails to recognise is those images show the SURFACE temperature, not the temperature in the rubble.

That doesn't work for you! Other than clean-up work using torches, what would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway? Remember, 911 conspricist had claimed the cut colums was proof that thermite was used, that is, until they found the cuts were made by the clean-up crews, not thermite.

Quote

I know a rank amatuer like myself is having to school you on the difference between the surface temperature and the temperature under the rubble, but if you want to claim that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, using the surface temperature is inaccurate and doesn't prove that there was no molten steel.

What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

Quote

When you consider the witnesses reported molten steel, not aluminium.....lol

They were not trained to identify molten metal. What they saw was aluminum, since  temperatures were  high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#854    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:16 PM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Probably Steel....lol

You have just proven that it t takes an expert to identify the flowing metal because the silvery droplets identifies the flowing material as aluminum. The silvery droplets were an very important clue and you missed it.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#855    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,789 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 19 February 2013 - 05:18 PM

View PostStundie, on 19 February 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

Jesus, its like dining with stupid...lol

Those are the satellite photos showing the SURFACE TEMPERATURES, not the temperatures in the rubble, which is the evidence you need to back up your assertion and prove there was molten steel, even though there was plenty of people who witnessed molten steel. lol

May I add that other means were used to measure temperatures at ground zero.

Quote

It's funny but sad watching you pretend these people don't exist or are mistaken when evidently, you are mistaken.......lol

Those people do not have the more than 40 years metal working experience that I have.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX