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This topic has been archived.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

#661    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:11 PM

double post

Edited by Little Fish, 15 February 2013 - 12:13 PM.


#662    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:13 PM

View PostGummug, on 15 February 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

I just found this and wonder how far he can be trusted
in my opinion, no.
he talks a lot but i've never heard him say anything (evidentially).
also, his wife is prominently involved with the codex alimentarious battle which is a corporate battle to control the food supply. there are people i trust on that issue that have come out and complained that his wife is hindering and not helping their fight for food freedom. imo, the guy to trust on that issue is scott tips (if you are interested).
http://www.amazon.co...ex alimentarius

Edited by Little Fish, 15 February 2013 - 12:17 PM.


#663    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 01:54 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

For me, I can look at a piece of metal and tell what it is. For an example, there are four  6" x 6" sheets of aluminum, and they are as follows:

1. 2024-T3
2. 7075-T6
3. 5052-0
4. 2024-0

I can visually identify each sheet, but if I want further confirmation, I will simply do the bend test because each sheet will have its own characteristics. 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 are used for structural purposes while 2024-0 and 5052-0 are used for non-structural purposes because they are too soft and 7075-T6 is stiffer than 2024-T3, which is why we must throw 7075-T6 into the oven to bring it down to the 7075-0 condition in order to form it as is the case with 4130 steel. After forming 7075-0, I will throw it back into the oven to heat-treat the sheet back to 7075-T6. I can use the same method to differentiate between stainless steel sheets as well, so for me, it would not take me very long to identify the material because I know what to look for whereas those who do not know what to look for are prone to misidentify the metal.
Oh dear....rather than just answer A, B, C, D, or E, you feel the need to tell us a load of irrelevant stuff.

They might not be able to identify the difference between the different steel standards, but they would not misidentify it because as you will know yourself, steel and aluminium are 2 different metals with different properties.

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

The best bet for those who have no expertise in metals. Just call it what it is and leave the identification to the experts because it they see aluminum droplets spread along steel column, chances are they are going to say the steel column has partially melted. After all, look how some folks confused compacted WTC debris that underwent high temperatures as molten concrete.
You might have a point if that is what they saw, but they didn't they saw pools of it, flowing like lava and not droplets spread across a steel column.

I know you are desperate for a reason these people are wrong, but so far, your arguments of what you think they might have saw it not evidence they are wrong.

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

A closer look and you can see lettering on unburned paper buried within the compacted material, which should have told them the material was not molten concrete at all.
A closer look should tell you that those pieces have already been examined and that it is definetly molten concrete.

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Well, if it is cooled down, it will become evident as to what the material is. Knowing what to look for visually and by feel, you do not need to be an expert to identify the metal.
There you go, see, you do not need to be an expert.

And do you think those who were at GZ finding the metal were letting it cool down so they could identify it?? Or do you think they just ignored it and did A)?? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

If you have a powered tool available, you can do a spark test. If it doesn't spark, then it is not steel because aluminum doesn't spark. If the sparks are white, then it is titanium.You can use a magnet to determine whether the material is steel or aluminum because aluminum is non-magnetic. You can do the scratch test with your car keys because aluminum is softer than steel even though aluminum is stronger depending upon the material.
I would have done a scratch test if it was not that obvious, so the point is that it is easily identifiable then agreed?? lol

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

If you know what to look for, then you call the metal what it is, so just refer to the two photos above as examples. otherwise you will be like BR where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel in regards to the facade of the WTC buildings and he says that he was there. Now, BR is aware that the facade was aluminum and not stainless steel.
I do not know what BR was aware of or not, I'm fully aware of the aluminium cover of the building.

And asking someone to look at a photo is not the same as asking someone to physically examine a piece of metal firsthand.

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Since most people are not familiar with visual metal identification, that would be the best bet otherwise they will be like BR and misidentify the aluminun facade of the WTC buildings stainless steel. Let's take a look at a reply by Leslie Robertson :

Its is not the best bet to misidentify the metal at all.

This is the hilarious thing, is that lots of people then supposedly misidentified it, even though everyone who specifies the metal says it was steel.

And thats probably due to the fact they saw the melting of girders in the piles.

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Now, let's do a review. Below is a photo of aluminum

Posted Image

Note the silvery droplets in the following photo. If aluminum droplets are splattered all over steel columns, then chances are, people are going to say that the steel columns partially melted.

Posted Image

!
Sorry but they look nothing a like.

Aluminium doesn't iradiate that colour in the daylight and loses its heat very quickly, this metal is staying very hot long after it as left the heat source and it is falling many floors before cooling down. Which looks more like steel than aluminium.

If you think those people at GZ are wrong, then you need evidence they are wrong, not your suspicions that they misidentified it, especialy when professors and people like Leslie Robertson who can tell the differences between steel and aluminium.

Edited by Stundie, 15 February 2013 - 01:56 PM.

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

#664    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined:03 Oct 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 02:34 PM

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

!
  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.
Conclusion, it was molten aluminium.:blink:

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

#665    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 04:24 PM

View PostCzero 101, on 15 February 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Ever see the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats"? Remember the General who tried to run through the wall of his office? The guy in your video (retired Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III) is the real-life General that character was based upon. Stubblebine has actually admitted on record that he did try, several times, to run through the walls of his office.

And no, he did not succeed.





Cz
I did see that movie. No, I didn't know that...not surprised he didn't succeed, lol. Thanks for the heads-up now I'll have to do some research (at least as much as I can do on the internet where reliability is always an issue).

Posted Image


#666    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,133 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 05:02 PM

View PostStundie, on 15 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

!
  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.
Conclusion, it was molten aluminium. :blink:

If you look very closely within that mess, you will find unburned paper, which clearly indicates that is no molten concrete.It is a compressed mess of four stories of debris and contents within the building. There is a video available where you can still read words from unburned paper embedded within the object, which clearly indicates the material was never molten concrete.


Posted Image

It's actually four floors of the World Trade Center squashed like a pancake and yet people were led to believe the meteorite was molten concrete. In another photo, an unmelted gun barrel was displayed along side of a similar object, which was yet another indication the material never reached the melting point of steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 15 February 2013 - 05:24 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#667    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 05:37 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 07:44 AM, said:

Let's take a look.
none of which addresses the question i put to you - explain how the molten iron was produced at 420 Celcius from thermitic chips that contain only iron oxide, if not an exothermic thermitic reaction then what?

and remember experimental results trump rhetoric and bloviation.

the point you cut and pasted from rhetorician Frank Greening does not address the question and was responded to in your own link by pointing out what Frank Greening is desperately ignoring:
"From: Steven Jones
To: Metamars
Cc: Frank Greening ; James Gourley ; Gregg Roberts ; Frank Legge ; Jeffrey Farrer ; Danny Farnsworth ; Brlbu ; Niels Harrit

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:12 AM

Subject: Re: Are the red/gray chips stable to hammer blows, or will they ignite?

The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.

Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores:

The formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition,
Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.

Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law."


in any case the distraction you raised was immediately refuted in your own link:
"how can you justify your remark that the narrowness of the DSC exotherm indicates nothing about the rate of reaction? Does it not tell us that the red chips reacted faster than the Tillotson sample, which showed a wider exotherm when run at the same rate? I believe one may produce a valid hypothesis to test that Tillotson's material was not as advanced as the red chips, being an earlier experimental material."

brushing aside your distractions, here is the question again - how can you explain the production of molten iron from only iron-oxide at 420C other than with a thermite reaction? like everyone else - you can't.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 February 2013 - 05:38 PM.


#668    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,523 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:30 PM

View Postfrenat, on 15 February 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

We we know you don't fly.  I have.  I don't hold a current certificate but I bet I have far more experience than you.


Yes, it is impossible to explain to you how wrong you are about the maneuver being impossible.  Especially since you never look at any opposing evidence and have your fingers in your ears.




Did I EVER challenge that?  AGAIN, those ARE NOT the lists that I was talking about.  Since you've repeatedly gone off the topic of the FBI list that was put out on the 27th of September of that year after which ALL stories of hijackers being alive stopped, is that your way of agreeing?  Do you have ANYTHING to say about the FACT that all stories about hijackers supposedly being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released?  Anything at all?  Or are you going to AGAIN confuse it with the lists released by the airlines?

Yes, Frenat, you know I don't fly, and you know that there was a Boeing at Shanksville and the Pentagon.  I do understand sir.  The conscious exclusion of painful desires or thoughts from awareness is a common trait amongst humans.  It is more important to be happy than it is to acknowledge the truth.


#669    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,133 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:38 PM

View PostStundie, on 15 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

!
  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.
Conclusion, it was molten aluminium. :blink:

If you look very closely within that mess, you will find unburned paper, which clearly indicates that is no molten concrete.It is a compressed mess of four stories of debris and contents within the building. There is a video available where you can still read words from unburned paper embedded within the object, which clearly indicates the material was never molten concrete.


Posted Image

It's actually four floors of the World Trade Center squashed like a pancake and yet people were led to believe the meteorite was molten concrete. In another photo, an unmelted gun barrel was displayed along side of a similar object, which was yet another indication the material never reached the melting point of steel.

In the video, I heard so much misinformation that it is unbelievable that anyone would take what is presented seriously. Let's take a few examples.

1. Timeline; 0:11. It depicts a grapple lifting a hot piece of metal and it is sought to imply the material is molten steel. Clearly, the material is not in a molten state so it is amazing that anyone would even suggest that is molten steel. There would have been no way to lift molten steel with such a machine, so that is misinformation #1.

2. Time line; 0:37, Steven Jones name is mentioned and that was a mistake because Steven Jones have been discredited by experts, and even by his own colleagues at BTU. The video also mentions that Steven Jones found thermite, but that claim has been discredited along time ago because the compounds he found was also contain in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Apparently, Steven Jones of unaware of that fact before he made his false claim. That ismisinformation #2.

3. Time line; 1:23-1:39, they mention molten steel but they are not experts to identify the metal as molten steel. In addtion, that claim is made regarding the "meteorite" which is not molten steel at all, but compressed contents of four floors from the WTC building that was not subject to melting point of steel which was evident by the fact there was still unburned paper within the material. So once again, misinformation that have duped people unknowingly, so that is misinformation #3

4. Time line; 1:40 depicts a curved piece of I-beam, which was subject to temperatures less that the melting point of steel under high stress.

5. Time line 2:00. The worker clearly has no idea what he is talking about. He claims that it takes thousands of degrees to form that I-beam, but that is correct only during the manufacturing process, not in the field. If that was the case, (in the field)  the I-beam would have been a glob of former molten steel and would not have retained the shape as you see in the video,and that is misinformation #4.

6. Time line; 2:40- 4:00 Persistent fires. Persistent fires within a rubble days after a fire is nothing new. Check it out.

Quote

Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

http://www.timesunio...two-4250472.php


Officials say Caldwell plant fire smoldered for days

http://www.idahopres...e=image&photo=1


Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

Read more: http://www.yumasun.c...l#ixzz2KzczdHsh

Conspiracist have been unknowing duped because they were unaware of the rest of the story. Persistent fires as proof of a conspiracy? We can safely list that claim as misinformaton #5

7. Time line; 4:00 - 4:30. The cross. The guy mentions that molten metal is seen draping over one arm of the cross. Here is that photo.


Posted Image

Clearly, that piece of metal is not, nor ever was, in a molten state, which placed that claim as misinformation #6.

He goes on to say that the two pieces of the "cross" were not part of the same object, but were fused together under high temperatures, but let's take another look.

Posted Image

How many crosses do you see in the following photo?

Posted Image

As you can see, those photos show that  there is a problem with his statement, so we can now list his statement as misinformation #7.

It all boils down to the fact that many people are unaware that they are being duped by those who were duped by others and the snowball keeps building, but to those of us who know better, we can see that problem loud and clear and that video you posted is just another example of what I am talking about. You only have to look back at that hoaxed video of WTC7 to understand what I am talking about.

Word to the wise; do not allow yourself to be duped by those whose intention is to lead you astray.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#670    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,133 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:41 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 15 February 2013 - 06:30 PM, said:

Yes, Frenat, you know I don't fly, and you know that there was a Boeing at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

I am very sure that we all known that already.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#671    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 06:44 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 15 February 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

in my opinion, no.
he talks a lot but i've never heard him say anything (evidentially).
also, his wife is prominently involved with the codex alimentarious battle which is a corporate battle to control the food supply. there are people i trust on that issue that have come out and complained that his wife is hindering and not helping their fight for food freedom. imo, the guy to trust on that issue is scott tips (if you are interested).
http://www.amazon.co...ex alimentarius
I had heard of the codex alimentarius, it makes me think of Monsanto, aka "the food Mafia".
eta: Thanks for that link.

Edited by Gummug, 15 February 2013 - 06:44 PM.

Posted Image


#672    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,133 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:01 PM

View PostStundie, on 15 February 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

Oh dear....rather than just answer A, B, C, D, or E, you feel the need to tell us a load of irrelevant stuff.

That is the way it works because you do not possess the knowledge needed to understand otherwise. Most people at that site are not experts nor were they capable of identifying molten metal, but it seems that 911 conspiracist were unaware of that fact.

Quote

They might not be able to identify the difference between the different steel standards, but they would not misidentify it because as you will know yourself, steel and aluminium are 2 different metals with different properties.

I can also identify dissimilar sheets of steel and aluminum because each have their own unique characteristics. An example: stainless steel 1/2 hard, stainless steel 1/4 hard, stainless steel, annealed, etc.

Quote

You might have a point if that is what they saw, but they didn't they saw pools of it, flowing like lava and not droplets spread across a steel column.

With thousands of pounds of molten aluminum dripping all over the place, it is no real mystery that clean-up workers would eventually encounter the stuff at ground level. We know that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel. The mayor said it himself in your video where he said that temperatures were around 2000 degrees, which of course, is a temperature not capable of melting steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#673    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:12 PM

Is this link trustworthy?


Posted Image


#674    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,133 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:32 PM

View PostGummug, on 15 February 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

Is this link trustworthy?
http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=vKEa8xZUgy0

I wouldn't trust that video because It is full of disinformation and misinformation and is as worthless as an $8.00 bill. There have been claims that this photo was proof that thermite brought down the WTC buildings.


Posted Image


Apparently, 911 conspiracist were unaware that clean-up crews cut the steel column.



Posted Image


Just another case where 911 conspiracist had turned something as mundane as a clean-up operation into an unfounded conspiracy.


KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#675    Gummug

Gummug

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,369 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2009

Posted 15 February 2013 - 07:37 PM

OK Skyeagle, how about this one though? I mean, I had heard before about trucks arriving after everyone left and leaving about 5 am before anyone got there. Workers, but working on what?


Posted Image