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This topic has been archived.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

#976    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,519 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 03 March 2013 - 01:59 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Common sense dictates that if a steel beam, which was described as cherry red, is not even close to the melting point of steel. Question is: how do you lift molten steel with a grapple?

You're on a slippery slope Sky, if you're going to invoke Common Sense.  Be very careful.

Common Sense shows no airplanes at Shanksville & the Pentagon.

Common Sense demands that jetfuel & gravity cannot generate temperatures sufficient to boil structural steel.  Common Sense demands that a government with clean hands would have engaged in a proper investigation PRONTO, and would have preserved the forensic evidence.


#977    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 03 March 2013 - 02:05 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 03 March 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

You're on a slippery slope Sky, if you're going to invoke Common Sense.  Be very careful.

It is all very simple to understand. If the steel beam is cherry red, it is not in a molten state.  

Quote

Common Sense shows no airplanes at Shanksville & the Pentagon.

That doesn't make any sense considering that B-757 wreckage was recovered at both crash sites, which was confirmed by coroners, investigators, recovery crews and of course, American Airlines and United Airlines. We all know how you concoct false stories. For instance, you've said there was no airplane was involved in the attack on the Pentagon and yet, you've said that American 77 passed north of the gas station, and remember, American 77 was a B-757, which is an airplane.

Quote

Common Sense demands that jetfuel & gravity cannot generate temperatures sufficient to boil structural steel.

They can generate temperatures high enough to cause total failure of structural steel. Ask any structural expert.

Posted Image

Quote

Common Sense demands that a government with clean hands would have engaged in a proper investigation PRONTO, and would have preserved the forensic evidence.

Forensic evidence has supported the official story.

Edited by skyeagle409, 03 March 2013 - 02:51 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#978    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:42 PM

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

seriously, you people are still running this sh!t around?
Obviously....lol

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

do you not have jobs?
Yes.

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

a social life?
Yes

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

girlfriends?
Well girlfriend...not girlfriends. ;)

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

drug habits....?
Very occasionally.

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

there's a world outside y'know, away from your keyboreds.
396 posts in 17 days, it would suggest that you are less aware of this world away from your keyboard than I am.

View Postshrooma, on 02 March 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

try it.
you might like it.
I more than like it, I love it.

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

#979    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 03 March 2013 - 09:46 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Everyone else you mention are not metallurgist, which explains why structural engineers who examined the WTC steel have stated for the record they found no evidence of melted steel at ground zero nor at the salvage yards where WTC steel was taken.
And you are not a metallurgiust, you were not at GZ , so are less qualified than anyone at GZ.

And for the record, there is plenty of evidence of molten steel. Denial doesn't equals no evidence of molten steel.

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

The WTC fires were not capable of creating temperatures needed to melt steel.
That is simply not true because there was molten steel, therefore the temperatures were hot enough.

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

There was molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, which was evident by the silvery droplets.
Not evident at all, it is your poor observation and speculation .

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

The aluminum dripped upon the steel beams and the lifting of a steel beam clearly indicates the steel beam was not in a molten state at all.
No, they were clear the steel was molten.

Panto debunking doesn't make it less true...lol

Edited by Stundie, 03 March 2013 - 09:46 PM.

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

#980    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 03 March 2013 - 10:11 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Common sense dictates that if a steel beam, which was described as cherry red, is not even close to the melting point of steel.
I forgot that common sense dictates that if multiple eyewitnesses says they saw molten steel at various times and locations at GZ, they saw molten aluminum.

Its a good job that you have the key to common sense. :blink:

View Postskyeagle409, on 03 March 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

Question is: how do you lift molten steel with a grapple?
Err...I dunno..You don't as such....Here is a concept for you to get your head around. You could cool it down before you pick it up, doesn't mean the steel was not molten or that it was aluminum...lol

Or you could pick up a cooler end....

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” - Greg Fuchek

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.

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

#981    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:30 AM

View PostStundie, on 03 March 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

And you are not a metallurgiust, you were not at GZ , so are less qualified than anyone at GZ.

On the contrary, one of my jobs dictates knowledge in metals and among my speciaties: heat-treating and annealing of metals.

Quote

And for the record, there is plenty of evidence of molten steel. Denial doesn't equals no evidence of molten steel.

According to structural engineers who examined WTC steel, there was no evidence of motel steel at ground zero nor at the salvages yards. Add to the fact there are no temperature readings that indicated temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Undeniable evidence supporting statements of structural engineer investigators at ground zero and at the salvage years that there was no evidence of molten steel at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 March 2013 - 01:04 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#982    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 March 2013 - 12:34 AM

View PostStundie, on 03 March 2013 - 10:11 PM, said:

I forgot that common sense dictates that if multiple eyewitnesses says they saw molten steel at various times and locations at GZ, they saw molten aluminum.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be present at ground zero to make a determination that if a steel beam is glowing red, it is not in a molten state--far from it. If a steel beam is pulled from the rubble, then the steel beam is not in a molten state.

Quote

Information

The military does not use thermite to demolish buildings. Unlike napalm, it is not used as a weapon. The military uses thermite grenades to destroy sensitive equipment so enemy forces cannot seize it.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.
NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.


September 16-23, 2001: Images of Ground Zero Show Thermal Hot Spots

In response to requests from the Environmental Protection Agency, through the US Geological Survey, NASA flies a plane over the site of the WTC complex, equipped with a remote sensing instrument called AVIRIS. AVIRIS is able to remotely record the near-infrared signature of heat. Analysis of the data it collects indicates temperatures at Ground Zero of above 800 degrees Fahrenheit, with some areas above 1,300 degrees. On September 16, dozens of “hot spots” are seen, but by September 23, only four or five remain.


Edited by skyeagle409, 04 March 2013 - 01:02 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#983    Pod99966

Pod99966

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2012

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:03 AM

Wow, I never knew a steel beam need to be in a molten state to lose structural integrity. I always thought just heating steel was enough for it to become malleable.


#984    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:14 AM

View PostPod99966, on 04 March 2013 - 01:03 AM, said:

Wow, I never knew a steel beam need to be in a molten state to lose structural integrity.
I always thought just heating steel was enough for it to become malleable.

There are claims that fires within the WTC buildings were not high enough to melt steel, therefore, thermite or thermate was responsible for the collapse but temperatures only needed to be high enough to weaken steel columns to the point of failure. In other words, a temperature needed to melt steel was not required to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings.

The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain was weakened due to fire, which caused the steel structure to collapse and three steel framed buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 March 2013 - 01:20 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#985    Pod99966

Pod99966

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 96 posts
  • Joined:24 Jul 2012

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:23 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 March 2013 - 01:14 AM, said:

There are claims that fires within the WTC buildings were not high enough to melt steel, therefore, thermite or thermate was responsible for the collapse but temperatures only needed to be high enough to weaken steel columns to the point of failure, and not reach the melting point of steel.

The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain was weakened due to fire, which caused the steel structure to collapse.

OK, so if we all agree that fires inside the towers, fires caused by 2 very large aircraft that had nearly full fuel tanks, could have heated the metal.

And I assume we can also agree that the metal was under unusual strain, having just been hit by the afore mentioned large aircaft.

Why would anyone believe the towers did not fall because of the aircraft hits?


#986    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:28 AM

View PostPod99966, on 04 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

Why would anyone believe the towers did not fall because of the aircraft hits?
a plane did not hit building 7


#987    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:26 AM

View PostPod99966, on 04 March 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

OK, so if we all agree that fires inside the towers, fires caused by 2 very large aircraft that had nearly full fuel tanks, could have heated the metal.

The jet fuel ignited combustible objects within the WTC buildings. Office fires can create temperatures high enough to weaken steel and in the case of the WTC buildings, fire protection was knocked off steel columns by the impacts leaving the steel columns exposed to temperatures in the range that can weaken steel columns.

Quote

And I assume we can also agree that the metal was under unusual strain, having just been hit by the afore mentioned large aircaft.

Yes! After the impacts, structural loads were redistributed and without fire protection, it would be just a matter of time before the WTC buildings would collapse. The effect on the steel structure of the WTC buildings by high temperatures was noted by the fact the WTC buildings began to buckle in the moments before they collapsed. If steel is not allowed to expand under high temperatures, it will be a matter of time before buckling occurs.

Quote

Why would anyone believe the towers did not fall because of the aircraft hits?

The impacts got the ball rolling and fires raged within the WTC buildings until they weakened the steel structures.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#988    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,124 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006

Posted 04 March 2013 - 06:30 AM

View PostLittle Fish, on 04 March 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

a plane did not hit building 7

WTC7 also suffered from massive impact damage.

Quote

WTC7 Damage

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html


...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110462.PDF

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.911myths....tc7_damage.html


Edited by skyeagle409, 04 March 2013 - 06:35 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#989    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

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

Posted 04 March 2013 - 11:42 AM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 March 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

WTC7 also suffered from massive impact damage.
so is that why they "blew it up * "?

* as stated by police officers, firefighters and first responders at the scene.


#990    Stundie

Stundie

    Poltergeist

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

Posted 04 March 2013 - 01:02 PM

View Postskyeagle409, on 04 March 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

WTC7 also suffered from massive impact damage.

Quote

WTC7 Damage

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html


...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110462.PDF

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.911myths....tc7_damage.html
Sorry but the following are not qualified structural surveyors and therefore are not qualified to make that judgement.... :P

Nobody at GZ saw any holes or bulges...lol

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