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This topic has been archived.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

#436    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,093 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:17 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 February 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Hijackers who are mysteriously still alive in other parts of the world.
No they're not.  The only stories of any that were still alive came immediately after the event and BEFORE the final list with pictures was released.  After that list came out there were no more stories.  Any reasonable person would conclude the stories of some being alive was due to confusion over similar names.
http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive

View PostBabe Ruth, on 11 February 2013 - 09:23 PM, said:

Impossible aeronautical events at Pentagon
only in your mind.  But you've shown multiple times your aeronautical knowledge is lacking.

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#437    Iron_Lotus

Iron_Lotus

    Happy

  • Member
  • 3,174 posts
  • Joined:02 Jul 2012

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:35 AM

View Postfrenat, on 12 February 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

No they're not.  The only stories of any that were still alive came immediately after the event and BEFORE the final list with pictures was released.  After that list came out there were no more stories.  Any reasonable person would conclude the stories of some being alive was due to confusion over similar names.
http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive


only in your mind.  But you've shown multiple times your aeronautical knowledge is lacking.

nonexistent*

"Good lord, what is happening in there?!" ................."Aurora Borealis?"

"A...Aurora Borealis?! At this time of year?!? At this time of day!?!  In this part of the country!? Localized entirely within your kitchen!?!"   ...."Yes!"

#438    coldboiled

coldboiled

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:22 Oct 2009

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:20 AM

So if there was foreknowledge of an attack and incompetence let it happen should those incompetent people not be held responsible. I know if a driver is to incompetent to drive to the conditions then often they pay for it.


#439    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:02 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

If they said the molten flow is steel, then they are not as knowledgeable on metals as I am. :no:
Absolute nonsense!! hahaha!!

You were not there, so you have no idea what they witnessed.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Furthermore, the temperatures didn't reach the melting point of steel. :no: That, is another clue. :yes:
Still waiting for evidence that the underground temperature was measure to prove that it never reached the melting point of steel.

And I know you haven't got proof of the underground temperatures because none were done.

Making another point you have raised invalid, however we know this pattern of behaviour all to well....lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Not only that, knowledge in aerospace metals was my expertise. After all, I was an airframe technician.
Who gives a flying fricking toss?? lol I certainly don't care and I'm sure most of the forum members don't care either.

So the only person who cares about your expertise is you and I do not care whether you are a world leading authority on metals and have never touched a piece of metal in your life, or if you have spent your enitre life working with metals.

The point is, your expertise doesn't trump or beat independent and multiple eyewitness accounts no matter how much you wished it would. :w00t:

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Let's just say they don't have the knowledge nor experience in working with aerospace metals as I have.
Lets test this shall we?? Are you more qualified than a professor Skyeagle?? :no:

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Does your knowledge and experience trump that of this independent eyewitness who was at GZ?? lol

You keep fooling yourself Skyeagle, it's funny to watch you delude yourself that you know better than everyone. I just can't believe people let you get away with such nonsensical arguments with no validity whatsoever.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

That is correct. Anyone who is experience in aerospace metals will tell you that from the photos alone, the flow is not steel. :no:
Anyone who claims to be an expert in metals, even aerospace ones and even none experts such as myself, will tell you than from those photos alone, that is not aluminium.

Why?? Aluminium has a low emissivity and only glows orange at extremely high temperatures or in dark conditions and more importantly, it is highly conductive meaning that it loses it's thermal heat very quickly.

Of course, you would know that being a expert in metals. :w00t:

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Knowledge over ignorance is where I have the advantage over those who have claimed the flow is molten steel, which clearly, it is not. :no:
And you knowledge is lacking evidently......lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

Check this out because buckling of the WTC buildings is evidence the fires weakened the structures of the WTC buildings, not explosives.
Sorry Mr Expert, but does your evidence of fires explain vaporised steel??

Dr Astaneh-Asl - "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."

Oh don't tell me, your expertise again trumps that of the professor!! :w00t: And he doesn't know what he was talking about as there was no evidence of vaporised steel??

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

The buckling brings us right back to these reports.
Excellent double standards.

Nobody at GZ was qualified to say there was molten steel, but the police are qualified to notice notice buckling, which isn't seen on any video footage of the day, to know that the towers would collapse.

What an excellent post Skyeagle, you've hit new heights! :w00t:

Edited by Stundie, 12 February 2013 - 12:03 PM.

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

#440    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:22 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Since temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, we can safely come to a reliable conclusion the flow was not molten steel.  :no:
Since temperatures of the rubble under the ground were never measured, we can safely come to a reliable conclusion that you are talking nonsense and are totally clueless.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Well, they can look at the silvery droplets and easily tell the silvery droplets are no way, steel.
Are you colour blind??....lol...2 things.

First, the droplets are glowing orange not silvery.
Secondly, if you or they (Whoever they are!) can look at silvery droplets and easily tell the silvery droplets are no way steel, then why can't they (the multiple and independent witnesses) look at a glowing pool of metal and easily tell that it is steel??

I look forward to another nonsensical argument or point. lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

The recorded temperatures, which were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel.
Recorded temperatures? Which recorded temperatures?
  • The paint analysis that the NIST did?
  • The thermal images from NASA?
  • Or some made up recorded temperature that you deluded yourself exists?

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Simple common sense logic, you understand.
I hate to be th4e one to break it you, but there is no common sense, although I will agree it is simple.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

In other words, since temperatures were too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then common sense would indicate that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel, and it doesn't take an expert to figure that out.
I know what you are saying, but your logic is not flowing correctly.

Seeing as we do not know the overall temperatures in the towers, therefore we cannot conclude that the temperatures were to low to melt steel but high enough to melt aluminium.

That is common sense.

Seeing as we do not know the temperature and the metal looks more like molten steel than aluminium, common sense says that chances are, it is molten steel.

It doesn't take an expert to work that out, although with you being an expert an all that, then you might struggle with the concept.

View Postskyeagle409, on 08 February 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Understand what is presented in this video.


The video is absolute nonsense and pantomime debunking. :w00t:

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

#441    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 12 February 2013 - 12:55 PM

Oh and Skyeagle,

I almost forgot because you nicely subjected shifted away from what we were originally discussing, which was Blanchard/Protec over to molten steel/aluminium! :td:

You said you had loads of phone calls/emails/correspondence of some description with Protec or other experts that Brent Blanchard/Protec have demolished buildings. So if you are you telling the truth (Which I highly doubt cause the twoof hurts, even when it's truthful! lol) Are you going to give us a straight answer and tell me and the good lurkers of this thread?

Do you have evidence which can be shown to us that Brent Blanchard/Protec actually have/do demolish buildings?

Or

Are you going to admit that Brent Blanchard/Protec have never EVER demolished a building because they are a documentation service for the demolition industry?

Edited by Stundie, 12 February 2013 - 12:56 PM.

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

#442    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:06 PM

View Postfrenat, on 12 February 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

No they're not.  The only stories of any that were still alive came immediately after the event and BEFORE the final list with pictures was released.  After that list came out there were no more stories.  Any reasonable person would conclude the stories of some being alive was due to confusion over similar names.
http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive


only in your mind.  But you've shown multiple times your aeronautical knowledge is lacking.

Yes, it did take quite a few attempts before the passenger manifests, or victim list, or whatever other euphemism you choose to use, was perfected.

You say one thing about the "hijackers", and newspaper articles and letters from around the world contradict you.  Who to believe?

Not a word about the cellphone calls of the impossible variety?

And still, it is amusing all these years later, to see people pay homage to Hani The Magnificent. :tsu:


#443    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 02:56 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Absolute nonsense!! hahaha!!

On the contrary, they made a mockery of themselves by claiming the molten material was steel when it fact, the droplets were that of aluminum. :w00t:

Quote

You were not there, so you have no idea what they witnessed.

I am aware of what they could not have seen. :yes:

Quote

Still waiting for evidence that the underground temperature was measure to prove that it never reached the melting point of steel.

Go back a few pages where I posted the specifics.

Quote

And I know you haven't got proof of the underground temperatures because none were done.

Go back a few pages.

Quote

So the only person who cares about your expertise is you and I do not care whether you are a world leading authority on metals and have never touched a piece of metal in your life, or if you have spent your enitre life working with metals.

I know enough about metals to prove that no one saw pools of molten steel in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Quote

The point is, your expertise doesn't trump or beat independent and multiple eyewitness accounts no matter how much you wished it would. :w00t:

My expertise has already trumped claims of 911 conspiracist. :yes:

Quote

Lets test this shall we?? Are you more qualified than a professor Skyeagle?? :no:

Depends who that person is? I have more knowledge on thermite, explosives and metals than Richard Gage and Steven Jones. That was clearly evident when I read their reports.

Quote

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."


Posted Image

That was caused by torches, not from thermite.

Quote

Does your knowledge and experience trump that of this independent eyewitness who was at GZ?? lol


If he claims that molten steel caused by thermite was found in the rubble, then yes, I am  more knowledgeable than he is.

Quote

You keep fooling yourself Skyeagle, it's funny to watch you delude yourself that you know better than everyone.


You don't seem to understand that 911 conspiracist continued to delude themselves. :w00t: :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#444    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:07 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Anyone who claims to be an expert in metals, even aerospace ones and even none experts such as myself, will tell you than from those photos alone, that is not aluminium.

On the contrary I even posted a photo of an aluminum droplet to make my point very clear and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote

Why?? Aluminium has a low emissivity and only glows orange at extremely high temperatures or in dark conditions and more importantly, it is highly conductive meaning that it loses it's thermal heat very quickly.

Take a look at this chart. What does it indicate?Posted Image








Now, you know why silvery droplets can be seen in the photos. :yes: It seems you do not understand what you are posting. :no:

Quote

Of course, you would know that being a expert in metals. :w00t:
And you knowledge is lacking evidently......lol

On the contrary, there were reasons why Raytheon Aerospace and the USAF sent me around the country on fact finding tours. Hint! It had to do with my expertise in airframes.


Quote

Sorry Mr Expert, but does your evidence of fires explain vaporised steel??

On the contrary, do your physics lesson and understand the temperatures were high enough to weaken steel.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#445    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:11 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Sorry Mr Expert, but does your evidence of fires explain vaporised steel??

Show a photo of vaporized steel that was recovered at the WTC sites. I am waiting. :yes:

Quote

Dr Astaneh-Asl - "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized."


Posted Image

Yeah, right!!!  :D That was done by a steel worker.

Posted Image

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#446    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:27 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Since temperatures of the rubble under the ground were never measured, we can safely come to a reliable conclusion that you are talking nonsense and are totally clueless.
Are you colour blind??....lol...2 things.

First, the droplets are glowing orange not silvery.

Let's take another look.

Posted Image

What do you see at the bottom of the photo? Silvery droplets and look what you posted. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote

Secondly, if you or they (Whoever they are!) can look at silvery droplets and easily tell the silvery droplets are no way steel, then why can't they (the multiple and independent witnesses) look at a glowing pool of metal and easily tell that it is steel??

I could show an alumumin droplet to many people who have never seen molten metal will describe droplet as steel.

Quote

Recorded temperatures? Which recorded temperatures?

Posted Image

You will note that the temperature range comes nowhere near the melting point of steel. :P

Quote

Seeing as we do not know the temperature and the metal looks more like molten steel than aluminium, common sense says that chances are, it is molten steel.

There is nothing in the photos that depict molten steel. Even experts agree that the material is aluminum. :yes:

Quote

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.

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

So once again, you bit the dust. :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#447    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:30 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

Oh and Skyeagle,

I almost forgot because you nicely subjected shifted away from what we were originally discussing, which was Blanchard/Protec over to molten steel/aluminium! :td:

You mean, Brent Blanchard, one of the world's top demolition experts who has been involved in thousands of demolition implosions? :yes:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#448    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:47 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Lets test this shall we?? Are you more qualified than a professor Skyeagle?? :no:

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."

Does your knowledge and experience trump that of this independent eyewitness who was at GZ?? lol


Yes it does. :yes: :yes: :yes: :yes:

Let's take a look at what he has said.

Quote


University of California professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel at Fresh Kills Landfill notes, “I saw melting of girders at the World Trade Center.” Astaneh also “describes the connections [between supporting columns] as being smoothly warped: ‘If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted – it’s kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot – perhaps around 2,000 degrees.’”.

Warped does not translate into molten steel. :no:  You will note that I have posed comments from those who have noticed the WTC buildings buckling before they collapsed which is a clear indication the structures are being weakened by fire and nothing to do with explosives. :no: Tell that to your professor and let him know that it was skyeagle409 who told you to tell him to do his homework. :yes:

"Perhaps, around 2000 degrees????"  He doesn't even know for sure! Tell us what is the melting point of steel?

Quote

Iron workers at the site pointed out that huge columns that were bent into horseshoe shapes - without the flanges showing any cracks or buckling. They cited, "It takes thousands of degrees to bend steel like this".

Proof-positive that professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl doesn't know what he is talking about. :no: :no: :no: :no:  Look at this video and you will note that the steel beam buckled and it didn't take thousands degrees. Some steels will begin to melt at 2500 degrees.

Take a look at this steel column from WTC 5, which buckled from heat from office furniture.

Posted Image




So go back and tell your professor that skyeagle409 knows much more about metals than he does. :yes:



Edited by skyeagle409, 12 February 2013 - 04:05 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#449    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 12 February 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

Yes, it did take quite a few attempts before the passenger manifests, or victim list, or whatever other euphemism you choose to use, was perfected.

It has been made very clear to you that the "victims list" was not a manifest, because the hijackers were not considered  victims. :no:

Quote

Not a word about the cellphone calls of the impossible variety?

As I have mentioned before, cell phones have been used in aircraft, and have worked, including mine to the point I had to turn it off.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#450    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 32,279 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 12 February 2013 - 03:57 PM

View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Seeing as we do not know the temperature and the metal looks more like molten steel than aluminium, common sense says that chances are, it is molten steel.

No chance, considering the temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel and the flow is clearly not that of molten steel. :no:

Quote




New Evidence Is Reported That Floors Failed on 9/11

Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.


In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."


http://www.nytimes.c...874000&adxnnl=1




View PostStundie, on 12 February 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Dr Astaneh-Asl who is a professor of Engineering at University of California said "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."


Now, for the rest of the story.

Quote


ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, (WTC and the overpass in California) basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed.

In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.

Source:

On 9/11." Transcript with links to read Audio and streaming video of the May 10, 2007 NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and Spencer MIchels on PBS. UC Berkeley Professor Abolhassan Astaneh

http://www.engineeri...E7-521E6DD34E60


Edited by skyeagle409, 12 February 2013 - 04:31 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX