1648 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Apparently, you are not paying any attention whatsoever! Now, as a challenge, go back and post where I said, the material was molten steel. If you have been paying attention, you would have found that 911 conspiracist clamed the material was molten steel, not I.

I think you'll find that conspiracist were not at GZ and they never claimed there was molten steel.

I think you'll find that the claim belongs to people who were at GZ. lol

Showing how little you have been paying attention.....lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 February 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

No one but you care Skyeagle.

It should!! After all, it took many years of experience in the field of working knowledge in airframes and metals to gain such an award.

Quote

NASA Photos only show the surfaqce temperature.

Once again, you are not paying attention. What have reports indicated about temperatures at ground zero below 2000 degrees? Look it up.

Quote

The NIST paint analysis only shows the temperature those peices of steel reached.

That is incorrect because paint does not adhere to molten steel.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:50 PM, said:

No you didn't and once again, you have dodged the issue again!!!

So once again, address each of the following timelines.

1.   Timeline: 0:57 - 1:19

2.   Timeline: 1:18 - 1:40

3.   Timeline: 2:53

4.   Timeline: 3:28 - 3:41

I've addressed the issues, they are all pantomime debunking.

Look at the first time line which uses the NASA images to determine the temperatures under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, even though the eyewitnesses saw steel and only a moron would use it prove that the temperatures under the rubble and doesn't understand what the surface temperature means.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 February 2013 - 06:53 PM, said:

I think you'll find that conspiracist were not at GZ and they never claimed there was molten steel.

Since the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, simply common sense dictates that there was no molten steel to be found, but since temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, then  aluminum is what they saw.

Simply common sense is all it takes.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

I've addressed the issues, they are all pantomime debunking.

Once again, you have dodged the timeline questions again and have failed to address each of the timelnes. We got your number.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

It should!! After all, it took many years of experience in the field of working knowledge in airframes and metals to gain such an award.

No one cares if you got a Civil of Quarter whatever the hell it is?? lol

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

Once again, you are not paying attention. What have reports indicated about temperatures at ground zero below 2000 degrees? Look it up.

I have looked it up and other than paint analysis from the NIST on the steel they found, there were no accurate or measured temperatures underneath the rubble piles.

If we used the NIST paoint analysis, we could also conclude there was no molten aluminiun either, let alone steel....lol

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:56 PM, said:

That is incorrect because paint does not adhere to molten steel.

The paint analysis was done by the NIST to determine the temperatiure the steel beam reached. I never said it adhered to molten steel.....showing that you can't follow a simple conversation......lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Since the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, simply common sense dictates that there was no molten steel to be found, but since temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum, then  aluminum is what they saw.

Simply common sense is all it takes.

Since there were no recorded temperatures under the rubble at GZ, then common sense dictates that you can't say that there was no molten steel found when there was plenty of people who witnessed it.

Common sense also indicates that the people at GZ have a much better understanding of what they saw than some internet warrior who has deluded themselves they know better.

And common sense also says that it wasn't aluminium seeing as no one refers to it as such...lol

[Gummug]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

At what temperature does steel lose 50% of its strength? What temperature range was reached within the WTC buildings, keeping in mind the redistributed structural loadsI due to impacts?

Right, I agree. I thought he was saying that it would be liquid at thousands of degrees...I was just saying, thousands of degrees might mean 2000...at which point I don't think it would be liquid. At 2500 or over, pretty much liquid. I'm not a metallurgist so I can't say with authority. Evidently the melting point varies with the type of steel/iron as well.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 February 2013 - 07:00 PM, said:

No one cares if you got a Civil of Quarter whatever the hell it is?? lol

Dodging the timeline questions again!!

Quote

Molten Metal at Ground Zero


Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.

During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.

http://www.debunking...m/ironburns.htm

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 06:59 PM, said:

Once again, you have dodged the timeline questions again and have failed to address each of the timelnes. We got your number.

No need....lol

The debunker of the video doesn't know the temperatures under the rubble and uses pantomime debunking to suggest that because all of the analysis shows temperatures not hot enough to melt steel, that there was no molten steel, even though none of the measurements paint an accurate picture of the temperatures under the rubble.

Its pure panto, debunking, pretending to debunk a point based on a point you never had in the first place...lol

[skyeagle409]

Gummug, on 18 February 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Right, I agree. I thought he was saying that it would be liquid at thousands of degrees...I

The steel beam clearly indicates it was formed at temperatures below the melting point of steel and under extreme stress.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 February 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

No need.

The debunker of the video doesn't know the temperatures...

Another dodge!   From now on, I am going to begin recording the number of  your dodging routines.

Why 911 conspiracy websites cannot be trusted. A conspiracy website wrote this about the following photo.

Quote

An excavating machine at Ground Zero lifts debris dripping with molten metal

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 February 2013 - 07:15 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

Dodging the timeline questions again!!

There is nothing to dodge, you have no evidence those at GZ were wrong about the molten steel.

And it doesn't matter how many panto debunking links you post, they do not possess the evidence those at GZ were wrong either, just assumptions based on what you think you know, which you clearly don't.......lol

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

The steel beam clearly indicates it was formed at temperatures below the melting point of steel and under extreme stress.

The steel beam clearly indicates that it was formed at extremely high temperatures and that it much have been soft for it to succumb to that extreme stress without any signs of fracturing.

skyeagle409, on 18 February 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

Another dodge!!   From now on, I am going to begin recording the number of  your dodging routines.

Don't worry, you've got about a 200 dodge head start.....lol

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 18 February 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

There is nothing to dodge, you have no evidence those at GZ

Dodge # 3

There is no evidence that temperatures reached the melting point of steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 18 February 2013 - 07:17 PM.