1647 replies to this topic

[skyeagle409]

Zaphod222, on 13 February 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

It is a disgrace to this site that there are 9/11 "troothers" around. These dimwits should stay at their conspiracy sites.

They just don't know any better, which is evident because they are not in the habit of doing their homework properly.

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

Funny isn't it, in all those pictures you have found aluminium to be glowing red hot, every single one of them has a dark background or are photos taken indoors.

Isn't it funny that 911 conspiracist were duped in that regard as they were when Eddie Current posted that faked video of WTC7?

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 05:04 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

He did, but he also said he saw molten steel too.[/quuote]

No he didn't because temperatures never reached the melting point of steel. He saw something else, most likely aluminum.

Quote

However, metal girders are not aluminium.....do you understand the difference? lol

I knew where you were going with it so I beat you to the  punch.
I

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

911 conspiracist do a good job of debunking themselves.

You would think that seeing you are delusional.....lol

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

For an example, some have said that thermite was the reason why there is molten steel, but there is no molten steel and if they checked records, they would have found that it is not uncommon for fires to smolder for days.

I checked the records and there are numerous accounts of molten steel, that is a fact you can't deluded yourself doesn't exist.

Fires didn't smolder for days either, they were described as raging inferno, lava pools, dripping metal etc....if you had bothered to check the records.

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

I will let you in on another secret, it was obvious the fires within the WTC buildings were not small.

I'll let you in on a secret, everyone knows you are not that smart Skyeagle. lol

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

Never heard of secondary explosions?

Of course I have....lol

However, you said that if explosives were planted in the towers, they would be detonated even if they were planted many floors below in the impact zone.

Highlighting again how moronic your position is.......lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Isn't it funny that 911 conspiracist were duped in that regard?

Nowhere near as funny as watching you dupe yourself that your internet skills trumps that of a professor and many other witnesses who said they saw molten steel at GZ.....lol

Edited by Stundie, 13 February 2013 - 05:05 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

You would think that seeing you are delusional.....lol

How amusing considering you have provided no evidence to back up what you claimed.

Quote

I checked the records and there are numerous accounts of molten steel, that is a fact you can't deluded yourself doesn't exist.

Considering the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, they saw something else, most likely, aluminum.

Quote

Fires didn't smolder for days either, they were described as raging inferno, lava pools, dripping metal etc....if you had bothered to check the records.

Ever heard of exothermic reactions of iron? Look it up.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Nowhere near as funny as watching you dupe yourself that your internet skills trumps that of a professor and many other witnesses who said they saw molten steel at GZ.....lol

My experience trumps those who've have claimed that molten steel was found in the absence of evidence and temperatures needed to melt steel.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:05 PM, said:

Nowhere near as funny as watching you dupe yourself that your internet skills trumps that of a professor and many other witnesses who said they saw molten steel at GZ.....lol

Remember, your professor has said that fires were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, but what message have I been conveying to you? Go on, post where he said that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, or do you want me to do it for you?!

Edited by skyeagle409, 13 February 2013 - 05:12 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

How amusing considering you have provided no evidence to back up what you claimed.

This thread is a record of that evidence......lol

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Considering the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, they saw something else, most likely, aluminum.

No they didn't......lol That is why you can't cite a single person at GZ who said they saw molten aluminium....lol

Hilarious pantomime debunking...lol

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

Ever heard of exothermic reactions of iron? Look it up.

Yes I have thanks, even without 40 years of expertise in the metals. Would that explain the molten steel? Or didn't it exist again?? Make your mind up...lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

My experience trumps those who've have claimed that molten steel was found in the absence of evidence and temperatures needed to melt steel.

Pure idiotic delusional claptrap!! lol

Your expertise doesn't trump the professor or the strucutal engineer who helps building the towers.

What a moronic thing to say......lol

[skyeagle409]

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis


Introduction and Failure Scenario
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the
forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a
total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the
steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused
viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the
tower and of the columns in the building core.

http://www-math.mit....TC/WTC-asce.pdf

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Remember, your professor has said that fires were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, but what message have I been conveying to you? Go on, post where he said that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, or do you want me to do it for you?!

No, I haven't forgot what he said about fires being responsible for the collapse, but you have forgotten that he saw molten steel haven't you??

Anyone who disagrees with the experts about the molten steel don't know jack squatl!! lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Pure idiotic delusional claptrap!! lol

Call it reality. Is it any wonder then, why I have said that claims of 911 conspiracist are ignorant-based?

Y

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis


Introduction and Failure Scenario
The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the
forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a
total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the
steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused
viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the
tower and of the columns in the building core.

http://www-math.mit....TC/WTC-asce.pdf

My years of expertise in NOTHING trumps that of these pure amatuers of science. <---Who does that sound like to you?? lol

Edited by Stundie, 13 February 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 13 February 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

Yes I have thanks, even without 40 years of expertise in the metals. Would that explain the molten steel?

They are not experts in the field of metallurgy ,, which was evident in their comments in the absence of temperature readings at the level needed to melt steel.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 13 February 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Call it reality. Is it any wonder then, why I have said that claims of 911 conspiracist are ignorant-based?

Y

Who cares what you say, you think you are right, even when you are evidently wrong...which is delusional....