Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

Not bomb explosions. BTW, what type of explosions are common in New York City? On another note, no video exist that depicts explosions during the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Molten Aluminum

A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4

Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.

Nicely edited quote of mine, but it doesn't change the fact that the person writing this is not a metallurgist and the fact that the NIST tried to recreate the bright orange aluminium.....

And FAILED......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nicely edited quote of mine, but it doesn't change the fact that the person writing this is not a metallurgist and the fact that the NIST tried to recreate the bright orange aluminium.....

[media=]

[/media]

And FAILED......lol

On the contrary, the silvery nature confirms the silvery droplets falling from WTC2, so in that regards, you made a serious error providing a video that actually supports my case on molten aluminum flowing from WTC2.

I guess you missed the message where it said that molten aluminum in WTC2 had mixed with other materials. which proves to me that you have not been paying attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, the silvery nature confirms the silvery droplets falling from WTC2, so in that regards, you made a serious error providing a video that actually supports my case on molten aluminum flowing from WTC2.

I guess you missed the message where it said that molten aluminum in WTC2 had mixed with other materials. which proves to me that you have not been paying attention.

These drops are not silvery....lol

colata_small.jpg

Out of curiosity, how hot is this so called aluminium for it to be glowing this colour according to your colour molten metal chart?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These drops are not silvery....lol

colata_small.jpg

Out of curiosity, how hot is this so called aluminium for it to be glowing this colour according to your colour molten metal chart?? lol

Let's take a look.

htchar1.gif

004_redloaf1.jpg

molten.jpg

Since molten aluminum was flowing within and out of WTC2, what other materials could have been added to the molten mix which were part of furnishings within WTC2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a look.

htchar1.gif

When we look at the source of the dripping metal, then the temperature is clearly white hot and therefore steel then?? lol

004_redloaf1.jpg

molten.jpg

Since molten aluminum was flowing within and out of WTC2, what other materials could have been added to the molten mix which were part of furnishings within WTC2?

Since all the photos show molten aluminium in dark conditions and seeing as this is happening in broad daylight and that it looks nothing like any of these photos, then I will have to conclude that it's molten steel. As it's over 1200C and I'm sure molten steel doesn't change colour after that 1200C!

Although I recognise I'm not a metallurgist and therefore do not know because according to you, only a metallurgist knows, but I also recognise that you are not a metallurgist too...lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we look at the source of the dripping metal, then the temperature is clearly white hot and therefore steel then??

Shows how much you don't know. It is very clear from the chart when used in conjunction with the photos is that the molten metal is aluminum, not steel. The fact that WTC2 began to bow underlines my point that the molten metal is aluminum, not steel.

So once again, where is your evidence?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just zoomeed

Shows how much you don't know. It is very clear from the chart when used in conjunction with the photos is that the molten metal is aluminum, not steel. The fact that WTC2 began to bow underlines my point that the molten metal is aluminum, not steel.

So once again, where is your evidence?

I just zoomed in using paint to look at the colour and the source of the molten metal is glowing white hot, so over 1200c.

Seeing as molten aluminium doesn't really glow and loses it's heat quickly and is also very watery in appearance at this high temperature, it would appear to be steel.

But seeing as only a metallurgist can make that call, we will never know...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just zoomeed

I just zoomed in using paint to look at the colour and the source of the molten metal is glowing white hot, so over 1200c.

Let's take another look.

moltenflow.jpg

Now, compare using the chart.

htchar1.gif

Consider that since the molten aluminum is flowing from within WTC2, chances are that it is mixed with other materials. That can't be molten steel because the building is still standing and would have collapsed long before reaching the melting point of steel and I might add, there are no steel columns being cut in that photo.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But seeing as only a metallurgist can make that call, we will never know..

Apparently, the silvery aluminum droplets says it all. Observe the silvery droplets.

moltenal2.jpg

If you are going to doctor a similar photo in the future, at least make sure that you retouched the droplets, not the liquid flow. You are not paying attention because what did I say about molten aluminum flowing over and mixing with other materials such as furnishings within WTC2?

Nothing like adding a bit of color to the molten metal mix, you understand. You wouldn't have noticed because you are not a metallurgist. Now, to carry on.

More on Aluminum Seen from the North side of WTC 2

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.

pg 412,413,114 chap 9

http://wtc.nist.gov/...hap_9-AppxC.pdf

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4

Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.

Molten Material

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit

http://wtc.nist.gov/...4/appendixh.pdf

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.

Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.

http://www.scieneeri...wtc_update.html

The NY Times article

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take another look.

Yes lets take another look now I remembered how to post attachments...lol

moltenflow.jpg

Now, compare using the chart.

htchar1.gif

Look at the attachments I've posted.

This is from the image you have posted above and all I have done is zoomed in using paint. It has not been doctored.

post-94025-0-07803000-1364373470_thumb.pThat one would indicate temperatures of 1200c

Now take a look at this is from the other photo you posted and the original one I looked at. Again, all I have done is zoomed in using paint and I've not doctored it.

post-94025-0-95743500-1364373151_thumb.pWhat temperature does that one indicate? Again, feel free to take a look yourself if you are in any doubt about the authenticity.

Consider that since the molten aluminum is flowing from within WTC2, chances are that it is mixed with other materials.

It doesn't mix with other materials. Showing you how little you have been paying attention.

[media=]

[/media]
That can't be molten steel because the building is still standing and would have collapsed long before reaching the melting point of steel and I might add, there are no steel columns being cut in that photo.

What a silly Skyeagle.... :wacko:

Of course it can be molten steel, what an absurd argument that if it was molten steel, the building would collapse. And here you are claiming to be smart while making a seriously dumb argument. Just because that particular part of the steel is being melted, doesn't mean the towers would collapse like a house of cards. There will be plenty of load paths more than capable of bearing the load from the relatively small area where the steel is melting.

It doesn't flow like molten aluminium which at these temperatures would be watery and would cool down a lot quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, the silvery aluminum droplets says it all. Observe the silvery droplets.

moltenal2.jpg

Those droplets are glowing nice and orange and are not silvery....lol
If you are going to doctor a similar photo in the future, at least make sure that you retouched the droplets, not the liquid flow.
I've not doctored anything...lol I'll show you in the next post of me zooming in gradually...lol
You are not paying attention because what did I say about molten aluminum flowing over and mixing with other materials such as furnishings within WTC2?
You are not paying attention, what happens in the video when the man from the NIST tries to mix other materials with the aluminium. lol
Nothing like adding a bit of color to the molten metal mix, you understand. You wouldn't have noticed because you are not a metallurgist. Now, to carry on.
And neither are you, otherwise you would have realised that the video shows clearly that organic materials such as furniture and carpet doesn't mix with aluminium or create aluminium capable of glowing that brightly during daylight conditions. lol

More on Aluminum Seen from the North side of WTC 2

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.

pg 412,413,114 chap 9

http://wtc.nist.gov/...hap_9-AppxC.pdf

NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4

Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.

Molten Material

It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit

http://wtc.nist.gov/...4/appendixh.pdf

The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.

Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.

http://www.scieneeri...wtc_update.html

The NY Times article

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

Sorry but according to your own logic, none of these are metallurgists and therefor not qualified to make the judgement.

And if the NIST can't create the dayglow aluminium, then they really do not have a case do they?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a still taken from a youtube clip.

mqdefault.jpg

Here it is zoomed in slightly...

post-94025-0-25228500-1364374568_thumb.p

And again....

post-94025-0-87451500-1364374656.png

and one last time..

post-94025-0-45783600-1364374780.png

Now lets stretch it so we can look at the colour....

post-94025-0-68165500-1364375340_thumb.p

So what colours can you see there??

htchar1.gif

I see temperatures of 1200C plus...lol

I'm sure if I had a better paint package on my computer, I could do a better job it's quick and simple analysis...lol

post-94025-0-76025800-1364375195_thumb.p

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it can be molten steel, ...

Impossible. One, because the droplets are not from molten steel, and two, the buildings is still standing, and three, that is where the airframe of United 175 was exposed to tempetures high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. So once again, you have no case.

Here is a still taken from a youtube clip.

mqdefault.jpg

Here it is zoomed in slightly...

post-94025-0-25228500-1364374568_thumb.p

And again....

post-94025-0-87451500-1364374656.png

and one last time..

post-94025-0-45783600-1364374780.png

Now lets stretch it so we can look at the colour....

post-94025-0-68165500-1364375340_thumb.p

So what colours can you see there??

htchar1.gif

I see temperatures of 1200C plus...lol

I'm sure if I had a better paint package on my computer, I could do a better job it's quick and simple analysis...

Where's your evidence that the molten flow is steel? I can answer that for you. You have no evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those droplets are glowing nice and orange and are not silvery....

On the contrary, they are. It goes to show that you are attempting to mislead the readers and the proof lies in the content of what you have posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure if I had a better paint package on my computer, I could do a better job it's quick and simple analysis...

What you have just said does not constitute evidence by any means. Fact of the matter is, the molten flow is not molten steel at all and another reason why it is not molten steel is because there is nothing on that floor that can generate molten steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those droplets are glowing nice and orange and are not silvery....

Let's take another look.

moltenal2.jpg

Apparently, the droplets on the lower portion of the photo are in fact, silvery, which once again, exposed your attempt to mislead readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible. One, because the droplets are not from molten steel, and two, the buildings is still standing, and three, that is where the airframe of United 175 was exposed to tempetures high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. So once again, you have no case.

Here we go with your ridiculous assertions which makes a mockery of your so called intelligence..lol

The building would still be standing if the molten metal is steel. The WTC would not collapsed by cutting a few steel beams because there is still an entire undamaged structure supporting the rest of the load.

You have posted the colour chart and the temperatures were higher than 1200c.

So therefore it could well be molten steel as it looks like a closer comparison than aluminium...lol

Where's your evidence that the molten flow is steel? I can answer that for you. You have no evidence.

I have the same amount of evidence as you that it was molten aluminium except...

  • It looks nothing like aluminium because it's glowing hot during in daytime conditions. Something which aluminium doesn't tend to do.
  • Aluminium loses its heat very quickly and this stuff pours out for many floors before cooling down.
  • That the NIST couldn't recreate the dayglow orange molten aluminium and failed when they tried to mix it with other stuff.
  • Aluminium is more watery at those temperatures and the stuff coming from the source is a thicker substance.

Let's take another look.

moltenal2.jpg

Apparently, the droplets on the lower portion of the photo are in fact, silvery, which once again, exposed your attempt to mislead readers.

What silvery droplets, they are glowing orange......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you have just said does not constitute evidence by any means.

No it is not evidence, it was a simple analysis which effectively shows that the temperatures were much higher than 1200c and therefore it could be much hotter and therefore molten steel.

Fact of the matter is, the molten flow is not molten steel at all and another reason why it is not molten steel is because there is nothing on that floor that can generate molten steel.

fact of the matter is, it looks and behaves nothing like aluminium.

There is nothing on that floor that should be able to generate temperatures over 1200C, but it's there.....

So is there something there which shouldn't be there?? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go with your ridiculous assertions which makes a mockery of your so called intelligence..

Actually, you got caught trying to mislead readers. You made a false claim which is why I posted that photo to expose your misleading attempts.

The building would still be standing if the molten metal is steel.

Let's see about that. Molten steel can support a tall building. Ok, I got your number. Another attempt on your part at deception.

No it is not evidence, i

You did have evidence in the first place. No evidence of bombs simply means you have no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing on that floor that should be able to generate temperatures over 1200C, but it's there....

You got caught again in trying to mislead people. Temperatures are in fact, high enough to melt aluminum as noted in reports that the building began to buckle, which is an indication that temperatures did in fact, exceed the the melting point of aluminum.

Once again, you have not been paying attention, so here it is again.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So once again, you have been proven wrong.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, you got caught trying to mislead readers. You made a false claim which is why I posted that photo to expose your misleading attempts.
Why am I trying to mislead readers, you can easily zoom in on any of the photos of WTC2 and you will find that according to the temperature chart which YOU POSTED, shows the source to be White Hot and therefore 1200c or higher.
Let's see about that. Molten steel can support a tall building. Ok, I got your number. Another attempt on your part at deception.
Jesus, it's like you have been hit with the stupid plank.

Just because there is molten steel, doesn't mean the entire building will collapse when there is an over abundance of steel which is not molten...lol

You did have evidence in the first place. No evidence of bombs simply means you have no case.

Sorry but the possibility remains and your panto debunking changes nothing....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got caught again in trying to mislead people. Temperatures are in fact, high enough to melt aluminum as noted in reports that the building began to buckle, which is an indication that temperatures did in fact, exceed the the melting point of aluminum.

And higher than 1200C as been proven with the colour chart YOU POSTED....lol

So therefore if its 1200C or higher, then it could be molten steel seeing as it's much closer match to that of aluminium.

Once again, you have not been paying attention, so here it is again.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So once again, you have been proven wrong.

Sorry but why do you keep thinking that these people can tell the telltale signs of building about to collapse.

According to your own logic, only a structural engineer can make that judgement, just like a metallurgist can make the judgement that it was molten steel.

Unless you think the police are now structural engineers? lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And higher than 1200C as been proven with the colour chart YOU POSTED....

Yes indeed and you have offered no evidence that refutes the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but why do you keep thinking that these people can tell the telltale signs of building about to collapse.

Common sense logic says that if a building is buckling, chances are that it is in danger of collapsing. Common sense, you understand, or were you trying to mislead the readers again?!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed and you have offered no evidence that refutes the evidence.

You have not shown anyone that it was molten aluminium.

  • You have shown us the NIST report which states that it was aluminium mixed with other materials, which when they tried to repeat in the youtube video failed.
  • I have zoomed in the photos you and others have provided to show you on the colour chart you posted that the temperatures were over 1200ct
  • You fail to address any of the point I have mentioned which raise doubt on why the look and behaviour is not consistent with aluminium.
  • You hilariously think the building would have fallen if it was molten steel, which makes absolutely no sense to anyone other than you when there is an entire building whose steel is not molten ready to take the capacity of the load where the molten steel was

Sorry but the temperatures were clearly hot enough at 1200c or higher as it has been shown by the colour chart you have posted. Therefore it is possibly steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.