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This topic has been archived.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

#1156    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:51 AM

View PostStundie, on 20 March 2013 - 01:05 AM, said:

There is not a single quote from anyone supporting the idea that this molten metal was aluminum...

First of all, these photos prove beyond any doubt the molten metal is aluminum.

Quote


Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image


Secondly, there were reports of aluminum.

Quote

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the building's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the airliner's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out of the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Fifty-six minutes and 10 seconds after it was hit, the top of the south building tilted horribly, to the east and then to the south, and initiated the collapse of the entire tower, floor upon floor.

http://www.taipeitim.../03/30/129774/4


Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials?

...It was at least that hot at points within the pile that were away from the hottest zones. William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Un-building the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:

Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ulti-mately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels.

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled."

"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html


Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:
(i)  By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding
on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of
anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to
cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.  

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy
airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the
morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed
about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the
fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were
fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed
from series 2000 aluminum alloys.

Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg,
and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower
the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to
about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that
the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some
of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before
its collapse.

But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on
9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten
aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and
NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the
pertinent references:

FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter

 Boeing 767 aircraft separately strike WTC 1 & 2 and flaming wreckage becomes
lodged in the upper floors of each Tower.

 Combustibles, such as office furniture, paper and plastic, start to burn, fuelled by at
least 10,00 liters of kerosene, and the temperature in the impact zone begins to rise.
 After about 30 minutes, the fires subside, but black smoke continues to pour out of both
Towers showing that the fires are not “out”, but “smoldering”.

 After about 40 minutes, parts of the airframe in WTC 2 approached the critical
temperature range of 500 - 550 C where aluminum alloys starts to soften and melt.
 At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2.

 The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through
other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also
falls onto fractured concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite
explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires.

 The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged
steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.

 The remains of the semi-molten airframe fall to the floor below and mix with fresh
combustible material, air, water, thermite reagents (crushed concrete, gypsum, rust), and
sections of aluminum cladding from the Tower’s fa€ade, initiating more explosions.

 This sequence of events is now repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly
violent cascade of destruction. Gravity adds momentum to the downward acceleration of
the mass of debris and WTC 2 collapses in less than 16 seconds.

 The burning aluminum remaining at the end of the collapse glows brightly for a
moment and illuminates the rising clouds of smoke and dust at ground zero.

 About 25 minutes later, the temperature of the aircraft wreckage in WTC 1 reaches the
critical 500 - 550 C range where molten aluminum starts to flow. The sequence of
events observed in WTC 2 is repeated in WTC 1 and a second global collapse ensues.

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, and remember this:

Quote

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."


Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 06:33 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1157    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 20 March 2013 - 08:34 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

Yes! Even the colleagues of Steven Jones at BYU have disagreed with his assessment and in fact, they have distanced themselves from Steven Jones, and I might add that Steven Jones got caught trying to trick people with doctored photos. In other words, he is not credible and yet, 911 conspiracist have been using him as if he is a reliable source. The claims of Steven Jones claims have been successfully debunked.
Was Steven Jones at GZ?? Was he one of the professors or ironworkers at GZ who witnessed molten steel?? lol

I think you'll find the answer to both questions is a big fat "NO!"..lol

Go back and read the conversations and you will see the only person who brings up Steven Jones is you, even if you think Steven Jones is wrong, it doesn't debunk the eyewitnesses at GZ. Neither does being a internet keyboard warrior who proclaims to be smarter than everyone else whose response highlight that he is about as smart as artificial intelligence on a VIC20. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

Goes to show that you do not have the knowledge nor expertise to understand the content of my message.
I understand fully, you corrected Babe Ruth, therefore everything you say is correct.

Please tell us all what I have no understood? Cause as I keep saying, if there was something I truly did not understand, you would be only to delighted to point it out...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

I don't need to be there by any means because investigators and demolition experts at ground zero found no evidence of molten steel.
That is because explosives were never tested for...lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

In regards to Babe Ruth, it proves my point that if you do not have the knowledge to identify metal, then you are prone to misidentify metals, and once again, where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel.
No, all it proves is that Babe Ruth was incorrect.

It certainly doesn't prove that all of those at GZ were wrong. lol What a silly leap of logic you have made...lol...but then again, you and logic are stuck together like two north ends of a magnet.

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

In regards to smoldering at ground zero, I guess you missed it before.
Evidently, you are taking his quote out of context because if one person describes the fire as smouldering, that mean it must be true at the expense and ignorance of plenty of other eyewitness accounts?? lol :blink:

So the fires were at a low temperatures and flameless combustion at GZ, even though the eyewitnesses I showed describe nothing of a sort and contradict the definition of smouldering.

Yeah, they were smouldering alright, like a volcano or like a foundry, smouldering like the pits of hell, or they were a smouldering rage.....lol

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

#1158    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:14 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

Well, take a look at what fire had done to the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain to where only the concrete core was left standing. That crumpled mess you see in the photo is what was left of the steel structure.What is left is concrete.




Posted Image

Lets look at more relative comparisons again seeing as you have brought this into the equation....lol

The WTC1,2 & 7 were high rise steel structures that collapsed due to fires after an hour and 7 hours, respectively.

So we have the following comparisons which are all high rise steel structures, all on fires, lets see how they perform shall we?

The One Meridian Plaza, which was high rise steel structure like the WTC1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
It survived and no part of the building collapsed, after being engulfed in flames for 18 hours!!

The First Interstate Bank is another high rise steel structure just like the WTC1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
Fires raged for almost 4 hours and yet it survived and no part of the building collapsed.


The 1 New York Plaza which was a 50 storey high rise steel structure just like the WTC1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
Back in the 1970's it suffered an explosions and fires burned for over 6 hours and yet it is still standing.

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel which was a 520ft high rise steel structure, just like WTC 1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
It was completely engulfed in flames for over 3 hours and yet, no part of the building collapsed.

WTC 5 was not a high rise but was a steel structure, just like WTC 1, 2, & 7.

Posted Image

It was engulfed for many hours and yet it didn't collapse.

Now lets look at other buildings which are not high rise steel structures which collapsed and yet somehow Skyeagle thinks these are better buildings to compare to the WTC 1,2 & 7.

The Kader Toy Factor was not a high rise building unlike WTC 1,2 & 7, but was probably a steel structure just like them.
Posted Image
And it collapses.

The McCormick Buildings were not a high rise building like WTC1,2 & 7 but it was probably a steel frame structure
Posted Image
And it partially collapses.

An over pass is neither a high rise structure but it is a steel structure, even though it is also covered in concrete too.
Posted Image
Oh and it collapses too.

So what have we learned.......
  • All of the buildings which are the closest comparison to the WTC 1,2 & 7 which are both high rise and steel framed structures survived after fires.
  • All of the buildings/structures which are the furthest comparisons to the WTC 1,2 & 7 which are either not high rise or not steel framed structures collapsed after fires.


Edited by Stundie, 20 March 2013 - 09:15 AM.

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

#1159    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:23 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

First of all, these photos prove beyond any doubt the molten metal is aluminum.
No they do not...lol

Aluminium loses it's heat very quickly and the flow coming from the WTC are a closer comparison to steel.

If aluminium was glowing that hot at that temperature, it would be like water, not thick globules dripping slowly from the WTC.

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

Secondly, there were reports of aluminium.
Sorry but the person reporting the aluminium is not qualified to make that judgement according to your OWN LOGIC....lol

Only a metallurgist is capable of identifying molten metals, as you have been telling me over and over again.

Here is what happens when the NIST tried to recreate the molten aluminium.



View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 05:51 AM, said:

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, and remember this:
And here is me thinking that the WTC were not buildings but actually steel foundries....lol

Again, this highlights how you take quotes out of context because not a single person claimed there was a steel foundry at GZ, they claimed it was like a foundry and I'm more inclined to take the words of people who were actually at GZ rather than some anonymous debunking internet keyboard warrior who thinks he knows better...lol

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

#1160    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 20 March 2013 - 09:33 AM

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that were on fire
  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived
  • WTC 5 - Survived
Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire.
  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse
  • An overpass - Collapsed.
And....
  • Anyone who says they saw molten steel, needs to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten steel.
  • Anyone who says they saw molten aluminium, doesn't need to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten aluminium.
Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all. :w00t:

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

#1161    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:47 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Lets look at more relative comparisons again seeing as you have brought this into the equation....lol

The WTC1,2 & 7 were high rise steel structures that collapsed due to fires after an hour and 7 hours, respectively.

The cause of their collapse was due to fires and imapact damage.

Quote

So we have the following comparisons which are all high rise steel structures, all on fires, lets see how they perform shall we?

The One Meridian Plaza, which was high rise steel structure like the WTC1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
It survived and no part of the building collapsed, after being engulfed in flames for 18 hours!!

It didn't suffer from impact damage unlike the WTC buildings

Quote

The First Interstate Bank is another high rise steel structure just like the WTC1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
Fires raged for almost 4 hours and yet it survived and no part of the building collapsed.

It didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings.

Quote


Posted Image
Back in the 1970's it suffered an explosions and fires burned for over 6 hours and yet it is still standing.

It didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings.

Quote

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel which was a 520ft high rise steel structure, just like WTC 1,2 & 7.
Posted Image
It was completely engulfed in flames for over 3 hours and yet, no part of the building collapsed.

It didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings.

Quote

WTC 5 was not a high rise but was a steel structure, just like WTC 1, 2, & 7.

Posted Image

It was engulfed for many hours and yet it didn't collapse.

They didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC 1 WTC 2 and WTC 7.

Quote

Now lets look at other buildings which are not high rise steel structures which collapsed and yet somehow Skyeagle thinks these are better buildings to compare to the WTC 1,2 & 7.

The Kader Toy Factor was not a high rise building unlike WTC 1,2 & 7, but was probably a steel structure just like them.
Posted Image
And it collapses.

Of course, and they did not have fire protection for the steel structures unlike the other buildings.

Quote

The McCormick Buildings were not a high rise building like WTC1,2 & 7 but it was probably a steel frame structure
Posted Image
And it partially collapses.

The roof collapsed due to fires.

Quote

An over pass is neither a high rise structure but it is a steel structure, even though it is also covered in concrete too.
Posted Image
Oh and it collapses too.

Due to a gasoline fire.

Quote

So what have we learned.......

That  you didn't take into an account the condition of the fire protection for the other buildings and unlike the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7,  they did not suffer from massive impact damage and whose steel structures were exposed directly to fires due to the impacts and you didn't take into an account the dissimilar construction techniques used in their constructions.

The only reason why the rest of the Windsor building did not collapse is because concrete was used as a structure core. In fact, there are a number of factors you failed to address in regards to the comparison of other fires and of the WTC buildings. You also failed to understand why it has been confirmed by experts that the three WTC buildings collapsed due to fires.

911 conspiracist tend to overlook the important things when comparing WTC fires with fires of other buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 04:53 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1162    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 04:59 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 March 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

No they do not...lol

Yes they did and the photos prove they would have seen huge amounts of molten aluminum within the rubble. After all, where did you think these molten aluminum droplets fell?

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Quote

Aluminium loses it's heat very quickly and the flow coming from the WTC are a closer comparison to steel.

It is very clear from the silvery droplets that the molten metal is aluminum, not steel and once again, nothing was found in the rubble that could have generate enough heat to melt steel and there was no steel foundry at ground zero.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1163    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:02 PM



Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 05:19 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1164    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:05 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 March 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that were on fire
  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived
  • WTC 5 - Survived
Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire.
  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse
  • An overpass - Collapsed.
And....
  • Anyone who says they saw molten steel, needs to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten steel.
  • Anyone who says they saw molten aluminium, doesn't need to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten aluminium.
Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all. :w00t:

On the contrary, you failed to  address the issues regarding those buildings vs. the WTC buildings. I think you overlooked something.

Quote

First Time in History


Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the Madrid/Windsor tower did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a 20 story gash. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.


I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.


Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.


Posted Image


But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.


"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."


http://www.pbs.org/w...minu-trans.html


But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.
The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...

Posted Image


The towers had most of the steel in this web on its skin to save office space. Like this...

Posted Image




Note: What's missing from the above photo are the core columns but they are not needed to show the difference in building construction. Conspiracy theorists will be quick to point out this photo doesn't show the core columns but this isn't here to show how many stick figures someone can create. It's here to show how the building had a vastly different design than the average building. If you're a conspiracy theorist just imagine your 47 box columns in the core. (The dark area in the center) The building will still be built differently, box columns in this image or not.


http://www.pbs.org/w...c/collapse.html




Posted Image


Let's do a review.

Quote

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses.

  The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

WORLD TRADE CENTER - SOME ENGINEERING ASPECTS

Why Did It Collapse?

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

http://sydney.edu.au...civil/wtc.shtml


Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 05:16 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1165    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 20 March 2013 - 05:22 PM

View PostStundie, on 20 March 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Here is what happens when the NIST tried to recreate the molten aluminium.



I hope you noticed the silvery droplets as he pours the aluminum because I have posted photos of molten metal in the form of silvery droplets falling from WTC2.



Edited by skyeagle409, 20 March 2013 - 05:27 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1166    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:07 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

stundie said:


WTC 5 was not a high rise but was a steel structure, just like WTC 1, 2, & 7.

Posted Image

It was engulfed for many hours and yet it didn't collapse.

They didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC 1 WTC 2 and WTC 7.
Patently and evidently false....lol

The fires at WTC5 are much much bigger than the fires in the WTC 1, 2 & 7 compared to the size of the building. We can clearly see at least floors 5, 6 & 7 engulfed in flames which is 3 floors out of the 9 floors WTC5 had.

So that is around 33% of the buildings floors are visibly engulfed in flames and yet it still stood.

It also suffered much more impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 than WTC 7 which like WTC 5 was not hit by a plane. Look at the fricking holes in the building...lol
Posted Image


WTC5 still stood even though it took a lot more of the brunt of the debris from WTC 1 & 2 collapse because it was closer to them than WTC7.
Posted Image

Even WTC6 still stood although that building has a huge gaping hole directly in the middle of it...lol

So the next time you reply, please have a think before you type out idiomatic responses which in no way address the points...lol

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

#1167    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:17 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 March 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

Patently and evidently false....lol

The fires at WTC5 are much much bigger than the fires in the WTC 1, 2 & 7 compared to the size of the building. We can clearly see at least floors 5, 6 & 7 engulfed in flames which is 3 floors out of the 9 floors WTC5 had.

So that is around 33% of the buildings floors are visibly engulfed in flames and yet it still stood.

It also suffered much more impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 than WTC 7 which like WTC 5 was not hit by a plane. Look at the fricking holes in the building...lol
Posted Image


WTC5 still stood even though it took a lot more of the brunt of the debris from WTC 1 & 2 collapse because it was closer to them than WTC7.
Posted Image

Even WTC6 still stood although that building has a huge gaping hole directly in the middle of it...lol

So the next time you reply, please have a think before you type out idiomatic responses which in no way address the points...lol

None of that has any bearing as to the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As I have mentioned before, you failed to account for the fire protection  of other buildings vs. the lack of fire protection of WTC!, WTC2, and WTC7, whose steel structures were openly exposed to the fires, which was evidence by the fact the observance of buckling just prior to the collapse of those buildings, which indicated that fires were affecting the steel structures of those buildings, not to mention the massive impact damages suffered.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 11:21 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1168    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:19 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 20 March 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

I hope you noticed the silvery droplets as he pours the aluminum because I have posted photos of molten metal in the form of silvery droplets falling from WTC2.


Sorry but the video of the NIST trying to create the so called glowing orange molten aluminium looks nothing like the stuff pouring out from WTC2.

However, what I notice is that molten aluminium in the NIST video I posted is very liquidly and almost water like in consistency, even though it is at a much lower temperature than the stuff pouring out of WTC2 because the so called aluminium is glowing bright orange from the WTC2.

Does aluminium start become more solid and less watery in consistency when you heat it above it's melting point, so that it glows bright orange?? :blink: lol

And using your metal expertise, at what temperature is the so called aluminium pouring from the WTC2, according to your temperature colour chart?? lol

Edited by Stundie, 21 March 2013 - 11:20 PM.

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

#1169    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,610 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:23 PM

View PostStundie, on 21 March 2013 - 11:19 PM, said:

Sorry but the video of the NIST trying to create the so called glowing orange molten aluminium looks nothing like the stuff pouring out from WTC2.

Now wait a minute!! If you go back to a segment of the video you posted, you will see a bit of orange color in the cup as he pours the aluminum, whose silvery droplets match the silvery droplets seen falling from WTC2.

Edited by skyeagle409, 21 March 2013 - 11:24 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1170    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,583 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 21 March 2013 - 11:23 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 21 March 2013 - 11:17 PM, said:

None of that has any bearing as to the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As I have mentioned before,  you failed to account for the fire protection  of other buildings vs. the lack of fire protection of WTC!, WTC2, and WTC7, whose steel structures were openly exposed to the fires, which was evidence by the fact the observance of buckling just prior to the collapse of those buildings, which indicated that fires were affecting the steel structures of those buildings..
Oh but it does when you are using a toy factory from a third world country, a building which is constructed out of completely different materials, a building whose roof collapsed and an overpass to state your case....lol

All of a sudden, the closer comparisons are no longer relevant now they disprove your point entirely....lol

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