1834 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Table 1 Thermal Hot Spot Data
Location Temperature Area Hot Spot N Latitude W Longitude (Kelvin) % FOV sq meter A 40^o 42' 47.18" 74^o 00' 41.43" 1000 15 0.56 B 40^o 42' 47.14" 74^o 00' 43.53" 830 2 0.08 C 40^o 42' 42.89" 74^o 00' 48.88" 900 20 0.8 D 40^o 42' 41.99" 74^o 00' 46.94" 790 20 0.8 E 40^o 42' 40.58" 74^o 00' 50.15" 710 10 0.4 F 40^o 42' 38.74" 74^o 00' 46.70" 700 10 0.4 G 40^o 42' 39.94" 74^o 00' 45.37" 1020 1 0.04 H 40^o 42' 38.60" 74^o 00' 43.51" 820 2 0.08

Nothing there that indicates temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Obviously even after all this time, you still don't understand the difference between surface temperatures and those under the rubble...lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:40 PM, said:

Were you aware that you have been duped by a tour guide called Mark Roberts and yourself??...lol

Since I have been working with metals for decades, I know what I am talking about, but let's hear it from the lips of Mr. Robertson you used as a reference..

Quote

Leslie Robertson

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.

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

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:42 PM, said:

Obviously even after all this time, you still don't understand the difference between surface temperatures and those under the rubble..

Surface temperature was found to be less than 2000 degrees. After all, you posted the proof yourself. Crews reported the steel beams they recovered from beneath the WTC rubble were "cherry hot?" So, let's take a look at the chart once again and tell us at what temperature is a steel beam if "cherry hot?"

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 06:44 PM, said:

Since I have been working with metals for decades, I know what I am talking about, but let's hear it from the lips of Mr. Robertson you used as a reference..

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the only metals I think you have worked with his mercury...lol

And as for Mr Robertson, it's a shame that he has contradicted himself cause we have a video where he made such a statement ...lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about ...

Of course I do! And, the quote came directly from the mouth of Leslie Robertson.

Quote

And as for Mr Robertson, it's a shame that he has contradicted himself cause we have a video where he made such a statement

Remember, YOU were the person who first used him as a reference in the debate and after the rest of the story has been made known to you, Mr. Robertson is no longer credible in your eyes.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 06:59 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

Surface temperature was found to be less than 2000 degrees.

Yes, the SURFACE TEMPERATURES!! lol

Do you understand the difference between the surface temperatures and that under the rubble with your expertise?? lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 06:51 PM, said:

After all, you posted the proof yourself. Crews reported the steel beams they recovered from beneath the WTC rubble were "cherry hot?" So, let's take a look at the chart once again and tell us at what temperature is a steel beam if "cherry hot?"

Jesus here comes another Skyeaglism...lol

That was after 6 weeks ...lol

“Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated that, six weeks after 9/11, ‘There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red’ and ‘the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.”

Edited by Stundie, 14 March 2013 - 06:59 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Of course I do! And, the quote came directly from the mouth of Leslie Robertson.

No you don't know what you are talking about....lol

I know where the quote came from, where do you think my quotes come from, do you think I made it up, or do you think that is what he said in the video?? lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

Yes, the SURFACE TEMPERATURES!! l

The "cherry red" steel beams that were reportedly pulled from beneath the WTC rubble proved the temperatures beneath the WTC rubble were below the melting point of steel. Common sense logic, you understand.

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

I know where the quote came from, where do you think my quotes come from, do you think I made it up, or do you think that is what he said in the video??

Still no evidence that refutes my presentation??? Why am I not surprised!

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

No you don't know what you are talking about...

Where's your evidence that refutes my data and documentations???

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

“Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated that, six weeks after 9/11, ‘

I have posted articles from fires where they continued to smolder for days after the surface fire was put out, so smoldering fires that last for days after a fire are nothing knew, which once again, shows that you have not been paying attention.

Quote

Burned buildings in Hinton could smolder for days

HINTON, W.Va. -- Hinton Fire Chief Ray Pivont says five apartment buildings destroyed by a fire could smolder for days.

http://www.dailymail...fs/201302280030

Quote

‘There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red’ and ‘the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.”

Since steel beams were pulled from beneath the rubble, indicates the steel beams were not in a molten state and secondly, "cherry red" color of the steel beams indicates temperature of the steel beams were far below the temperature needed to melt steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

The "cherry red" steel beams that were reportedly pulled from beneath the WTC rubble proved the temperatures beneath the WTC rubble were below the melting point of steel.

Six weeks later after being doused in water 24/7 by firefighter with millions of gallons of water...lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Common sense logic, you understand.

You common sense is only common to you...lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Still no evidence that refutes my presentation??? Why am I not surprised!

Where's your evidence that refutes my data and documentations???

I do not need evidence to refute something you can't even establish....lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:15 PM, said:

Six weeks later after being doused in water 24/7 by firefighter with millions of gallons of water..

Smoldering fires that last for days or even years, are nothing new.

Quote

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.

Read more: http://www.yumasun.c...l#ixzz2NXkjtmIV

Now, where's your evidence?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:19 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:16 PM, said:

Smoldering fires that last for days or even years, are nothing new. Now, where's your evidence?

Creating molten steel is new and could you show me a building collapse which smoldered for years.

p.s. There is no evidence because you haven't supplied any to support your claim. Estimate and surface temperatures do not reflect the true temperatures within the rubble and it#s truly not my fault that you cannot get your head around this simple concept, even though you claim to be some sort of metals wiz....lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 March 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

Creating molten steel is new and could you show me a building collapse which smoldered for years.

Show us any source capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.

Quote

...p.s. There is no evidence because you haven't supplied any to support your claim.

The laws of physics, recorded temperature data and documentation at ground zero, and common sense are all that is needed to prove my claiim.

Quote

Estimate and surface temperatures do not reflect the true temperatures within the rubble ...

The "cherry red" steel beams pulled from beheath the rubble of the WTC buildings are indicative of the temperatures beneath the rubble, which was nowhere near the melting point of steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 March 2013 - 07:24 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

I have posted articles from fires where they continued to smolder for days after the surface fire was put out, so smoldering fires that last for days after a fire are nothing knew, which once again, shows that you have not been paying attention.





Since steel beams were pulled from beneath the rubble, indicates the steel beams were not in a molten state and secondly, "cherry red" color of the steel beams indicates temperature of the steel beams were far below the temperature needed to melt steel.

Yes, because the fires at GZ which were like pits of molten lava, like a volcano, like a foundry were actually smouldering....lol

So not only do you not understand the difference between the surface temps and those under the rubble, you do not understand the difference between smoldering and fire like a foundry...lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Show us any source capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.

I do not know the source, just like FEMA didn't know the source of the vaprosied steel.

Just because we do not know the source, doesn't mean that it never existed does it?? lol

skyeagle409, on 14 March 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

The laws of physics, recorded temperature data and documentation at ground zero, and common sense is all that is needed to prove my claiim.

The laws of physics say that if numerous witnesses said they saw molten steel, they saw aluminium...lol
What law of physics is this? Skyeagles first imaginary laws of physics....lol