WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[Stundie]

They got quite close and if you noticed in one of my post, they said that when they tried to open up the rubble the fire would flare up and yet, the temperature did not reach the melting point of steel.

They couldn't get close and if you noticed that when a steel beam was pulled out, it would burst into flames. And we all know what extra oxygen does to the temperature.

“Sometimes the steel could explode when the buried ends were exposed to the air. You saw some of the thickest steel I’ve ever seen bent like a pretzel, and you just couldn’t imagine the force that that took. The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire on the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames, which was pretty spooky to see.” – Larry Keating, union ironworker, in “Metal of Honor”documentary

“Large columns of steel were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals….It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together……With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.” –Mike Donoho, Fire Chief – Bryan, TX Fire Department, aided in cleanup effort.

[skyeagle409]

They couldn't get close and if you noticed that when a steel beam was pulled out, it would burst into flames. And we all know what extra oxygen does to the temperature.

The fact they were able to pull out a steel beam has proven my point that the temperature was nowhere near the melting point of steel. The steel beams have also been described as 'cherry hot,' which once again, proved my point the beams were nowhere near the temperature needed to melt steel.

[Stundie]

The fact they were able to pull out a steel beam has proven my point that the temperature was nowhere near the melting point of steel.

No it doesn't. If one end of the beam is not molten, it doesn't mean the other end stuck in the rubble isn't. Especially when there are pools of molten steel, like a foundry or lava.

The steel beams have also been described as 'cherry hot,' which once again, proved my point the beams were nowhere near the temperature needed to melt steel.

You are using the one quote which was a beam picked up after 7 weeks of firefighting and being doused in water. Maybe you should look at the other quotes, instead of "cherry" picking quotes which you think support your argument and ignoring the wealth of quotes which don't. lol

Like this one....

He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that.” He added, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot–perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”—”Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually”, By Jeffrey R. Young, The Chronicle, Dec 7, 2001

Edited March 8, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

No it doesn't. If one end of the beam is not molten,...

It didn't work that way. The steel beam was never exposed to temperatures of 2800 degrees.

He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns.

Fires caused the beams to bend because there was nowhere for them to expand.

He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that.”

I have posted photos of steel beams that were bent and never exposed to temperatures needed to melt steel. In fact, the photos proved the beams were never subject to such high temperatures. An office fire will bend structural steel as well as was the case in the Windsor fire in Spain which caused its steel structure to collapse that left only the concrete core standing.

"ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the building's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the airliner's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out of the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Fifty-six minutes and 10 seconds after it was hit, the top of the south building tilted horribly, to the east and then to the south, and initiated the collapse of the entire tower, floor upon floor.

http://www.taipeitim.../03/30/129774/4

Edited March 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

For one thing ,Stundie dont ever listen ,or believe a Texan Fire Cheif ! ITs alway Hotter in Texas,and Always Bigger. As for the commits about molten metals ? Show us the videos of such reported molten metals,in this state? Proof is awaiting us ?

[Stundie]

It didn't work that way. The steel beam was never exposed to temperatures of 2800 degrees.

Oh but it did work that way, evidence from eyewitnesses prove it and you were not at GZ to claim any different.

“Large columns of steel were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals….It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together……With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.” –Mike Donoho, Fire Chief – Bryan, TX Fire Department, aided in cleanup effort

Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F. –http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

“When steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down.” – Father Edward A. Malloy, “Visit to Ground Zero, New York City”

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.” —Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero by Jennifer Lin, Philadelphia Inquirer, 05/29/2002

Again, claiming to know better than those at GZ! lol

Fires caused the beams to bend because there was nowhere for them to expand.

And from the intense heat, that is why there are no signs of stress or fractures on some of the beams.

I have posted photos of steel beams that were bent and never exposed to temperatures needed to melt steel. In fact, the photos proved the beams were never subject to such high temperatures. An office fire will bend structural steel as well as was the case in the Windsor fire in Spain which caused its steel structure to collapse that left only the concrete core standing.

"ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."

So if the fires were near 2000F who added that fires are to deep to get to, does that automatically mean that the fire were not hot enough to melt steel? lol

Oh and btw.....

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).

I'll just await for you to claim that the US Geological Survey are wrong because the temperatures were not hot enough to melt molybdenum. lol

[Stundie]

For one thing ,Stundie dont ever listen ,or believe a Texan Fire Cheif ! ITs alway Hotter in Texas,and Always Bigger. As for the commits about molten metals ? Show us the videos of such reported molten metals,in this state? Proof is awaiting us ?

Here comes the cheerleader! lol

You obviously didn't read the sign from my other post.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=241014&st=990#entry4687457

Why don't you show us videos of the molten aluminium that no one reported in this state? Proof is awaiting me cheerleader? lol

[skyeagle409]

Here comes the cheerleader! lol

You obviously didn't read the sign from my other post.

http://www.unexplain...90#entry4687457

Why don't you show us videos of the molten aluminium that no one reported in this state? Proof is awaiting me cheerleader? lol

But, there was a report of harden pools of aluminum were reported and I posted that message just the other day. Check it out.

There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. CTs often call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown.

What have I said about it takes an expert, not a firefighter, to identify molten metal. After the molten metal has harden, then it can be determined whether the solidified material is aluminum or not.

...Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after the collapses showed tem-peratures near the surface of up to 1375 F: hot enough to melt aluminum.

What have said about that?

...It was at least that hot at points within the pile that were away from the hottest zones. William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Un-building the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:

Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ulti-mately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels.

And yet, no molten steel seen nor photographed while on the other hand, we saw molten aluminum flowing from the corner of the WTC building, which was evident by cooled silvery droplets forming as they descended toward the ground.

Edited March 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Oh but it did work that way, evidence from eyewitnesses prove it and you were not at GZ to claim any different.

I didn't need to be at ground zero. Firefighters and structural investigators have indicated on the record the temperatures never rose to the level needed to melt steel and I have provided that evidence in the form of aerial data and infrared images to backup my claim.

“Large columns of steel were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals….

Impossible! The temperatures were not high enough to melt steel.

...It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together……With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel.

Since they saw rebar, that was another indication the pile did not consist of molten steel.

...A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.” –Mike Donoho, Fire Chief – Bryan, TX Fire Department, aided in cleanup effort

If it was molten metal, then he had no knowledge to make a determination what that molten metal consisted of.

...Some beams pulled from the wreckage are still red hot more than 7 weeks after the attack, and it is suspected that temperatures beneath the debris pile are well in excess of 1,000°F. –http://thermalimages.nfshost.com/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Hot_Spots

Since the steel beams retained their shapes, that indicates the temperatures were nowhere near the melting point of steel nor were they in a molten state.

...“When steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down.” – Father Edward A. Malloy, “Visit to Ground Zero, New York City”

Remember, I have posted news reports of other incidents where fires continued to smolder for many days within the rubble after the fire was put out, which has been reported in other cases and not surprising. I have also posted facts where at times, stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires. I have also posted the following message:

"

Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire

. T

hat’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called

oxidation

. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

...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.” —Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero by Jennifer Lin, Philadelphia Inquirer, 05/29/2002

What he saw wasn't a molten steel beam, which was evident by the fact he identified the object as a steel beam. What he saw was aluminum dripping because temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel and there was aluminum everywhere and used extensively in the facade in the WTC buildings, not to mention the aircraft that struck those buildings..

Again, claiming to know better than those at GZ! lol And from the intense heat, that is why there are no signs of stress or fractures on some of the beams.

In no way does that indicate the beams were ever in a molten state at ground zero. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a beam to observe.

...So if the fires were near 2000F who added that fires are to deep to get to, does that automatically mean that the fire were not hot enough to melt steel? lol

Firefighters and others have said the temperature at the core was near 2000 degrees F., not over 2000 degrees, which is still far below the temperature needed to melt steel.

Oh and btw.....

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).

You failed to understand that clean-up operations were well in progress when those dust samples were taken and remember, clean-up crews were using torches and wands to cut steel beams, which would have contaminated any dust samples taken later at ground zero, and remember this:

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

Edited March 8, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

For one thing ,Stundie dont ever listen ,or believe a Texan Fire Cheif ! ITs alway Hotter in Texas,and Always Bigger. As for the commits about molten metals ? Show us the videos of such reported molten metals,in this state? Proof is awaiting us ?

911 conspiracist posted photos of bent and distorted steel beams they claimed was evidence of molten steel. Their remarks underlined the fact they had no idea what they were talking about. At no time did any of the photos they provided show any signs they were ever in a molten stated just prior nor after the collapse of the WTC buildings.

[Stundie]

I didn't need to be at ground zero.

Yes you do if you think that those at GZ were wrong.

Firefighters and structural investigators have indicated on the record the temperatures never rose to the level needed to melt steel and I have provided that evidence in the form of aerial data and infrared images to backup my claim.

No, you have indicated that they are not hot enough based on the estimates and measurements of the surface temperatures. lol

They also indicated molten steel.

Impossible! The temperatures were not high enough to melt steel.

Not impossible at all.

Since they saw rebar, that was another indication the pile did not consist of molten steel.

Oh how I love how you claim that people didn't see what they claimed based on nothing more than your personal opinion sat behind a keyboard.

If it was molten metal, then he had no knowledge to make a determination what that molten metal consisted of.

They had plenty of knowledge and you are the one who is lacking in knowledge to make a determination on what they saw, when you have no fricking idea what they saw. lol

Since the steel beams retained their shapes, that indicates the temperatures were nowhere near the melting point of steel nor were they in a molten state.

It doesn't indicate that at all....lol What it indicates is that you think you can debunk the professionals at GZ while sitting behind your keyboard...lol

Remember, I have posted news reports of other incidents where fires continued to smolder for many days within the rubble after the fire was put out, which has been reported in other cases and not surprising. I have also posted facts where at times, stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires. I have also posted the following message:

You have posted a lot of nonsense and lack the capabilities to debunk what those people saw at GZ because you were not there and have no evidence they are incorrect....lol

What he saw wasn't a molten steel beam, which was evident by the fact he identified the object as a steel beam. What he saw was aluminum dripping because temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel and there was aluminum everywhere and used extensively in the facade in the WTC buildings, not to mention the aircraft that struck those buildings.

No what he saw was molten steel and you thinking that you know what he saw, highlights how delusional you truly are...lol

In no way does that indicate the beams were ever in a molten state at ground zero. If that was the case, there wouldn't have been a beam to observe.

What it indicates is that the temps were extremely high and that people saw molten steel.

IFirefighters and others have said the temperature at the core was near 2000 degrees F., not over 2000 degrees, which is still far below the temperature needed to melt steel.

Some firefighters say that, some say they were higher and lower.

Its probably because the debris pile was extremely large and therefore the temperatures were not uniformed and varied depending on the location and the time the temperature was recorded.

You failed to understand that clean-up operations were well in progress when those dust samples were taken and remember, clean-up crews were using torches and wands to cut steel beams, which would have contaminated any dust samples taken later at ground zero, and remember this:

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

Yes but there is plenty of evidence which shows that the ASCE and SEONY are incorrect, as well as plenty of other data which shows that temperatures were probably much higher.

Making your entire argument a joke and moot....lol

[skyeagle409]

Yes you do if you think that those at GZ were wrong.

If they claimed they saw pools of molten steel. There was nothing at ground zero to produce molten steel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews, but nothing within the rubble itself.

No, you have indicated that they are not hot enough based on the estimates and measurements of the surface temperatures. lol

Common sense dictates that if temperatures are not high enough to produce pools ofmelt steel, then there were no pools of molten steel to observe.

They also indicated molten steel.

Apparently, structural engineers and investigators found no such evidence. To underline that fact, what was the source? If you are unable to answer the question, then its case-closed. A "I don't know" answer won't work either.

Oh how I love how you claim that people didn't see what they claimed based on nothing more than your personal opinion sat behind a keyboard.

Let's just say that I know more about metals than your typical firefighter. In addition, you have failed to produce evidence that temperatures were high enough to melt steel and until you do so, you have no case.

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

Its probably because the debris pile was extremely large and therefore the temperatures were not uniformed and varied depending on the location and the time the temperature was recorded.

"Probably," doesn't cut it. Temperature readings at various locations at ground zero were taken and no one found temperatures high enough to melt steel.

...

Yes but there is plenty of evidence which shows that the ASCE and SEONY are incorrect,...

Prove it!

...as well as plenty of other data which shows that temperatures were probably much higher.

Making your entire argument a joke and moot....lol

They are the experts and temperature readings have backed up their statements and they knew what they were talking about which effectively closed the book on those who've claim that pools of molten steel were found at ground zero. They cannot even provide a source at ground zero capable of producing large pools of molten steel.

Edited March 11, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

If they claimed they saw pools of molten steel. There was nothing at ground zero to produce molten steel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews, but nothing within the rubble itself.

They saw it alright and you are in NO position to suggest otherwise.

Unless you think sitting behind your keyboard debunks those who were actually at GZ, which you obviously do...lol

Common sense dictates that if temperatures are not high enough to produce pools ofmelt steel, then there were no pools of molten steel to observe.

Common sense indicates that if the only evidence you have to disprove the numerous eyewitnesses is estimates, guesses and surface temperatures of the rubble at GZ, doesn't actually disprove them.

Apparently, structural engineers and investigators found no such evidence. To underline that fact, what was the source? If you are unable to answer the question, then its case-closed. A "I don't know" answer won't work either.

Apparently, you are unaware that engineers and investigators found that evidence.

Just because I do not know the source, doesn't mean it that it is not true.

If that is your argument and logic, then I suppose that when FEMA couldn't explain the source which vaporised the steel, that they didn't see vaporised steel, they saw vaporised aluminium... hahahahahahaha!!

Let's just say that I know more about metals than your typical firefighter.

Lets just say you don't internet warrior.

In addition, you have failed to produce evidence that temperatures were high enough to melt steel and until you do so, you have no case.

I do not need to prove that the temperatures were high enough because the temperatures were truly unknown because the only temperatures taken show the surface temperatures and the rest are just people guessing.

"Probably," doesn't cut it. Temperature readings at various locations at ground zero were taken and no one found temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Neither do people estimating or surface temperatures...lol

Prove it!

Its been proven by the numerous eyewitnesses who claimed they saw molten steel...lol

They are the experts and temperature readings have backed up their statements and they knew what they were talking about which effectively closed the book on those who've claim that pools of molten steel were found at ground zero. They cannot even provide a source at ground zero capable of producing large pools of molten steel.

There were experts who saw the molten steel at GZ and just because the ACSE and the NIST didn't bother to record or use them as evidence, doesn't mean they didn't see molten steel.

Which effectively closes nothing but your mind....but that's been clamped and towed away along time ago.......lol

Edited March 11, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

They saw it alright and you are in NO position to suggest otherwise.

Apparently, you are mistaken. Temperatures readings of ground zero proves that .

Unless you think sitting behind your keyboard debunks those who were actually at GZ, which you obviously do...lol

That doesn't make any sense. I wasn't at the last launch of the space shuttle and didn't need to attend the occasion to know that it was launched. You have to prove that temperatures were high enough to melt steel and as of today, you have failed.

Common sense indicates that if the only evidence you have to disprove the numerous eyewitnesses is estimates, guesses and surface temperatures of the rubble at GZ, doesn't actually disprove them.

Apparently, you are unaware that engineers and investigators found that evidence.

The witnesses said that temperatures reached as high at 2000 degrees, which is well below the melting point of steel, but well above the melting point of aluminum, which clearly indicates there was no way they saw steel nor were they trained to identify molten molten metal.

Which effectively closes nothing but your mind....but that's been clamped and towed away along time ago.......lol

Actually, it does because nothing was recovered at ground zero that could have produced molten steel, and remember, they said that "red hot" steel beams were recovered, which in no way were in a molten state. Looking at the chart, the temperature of a red hot steel beam is nowhere near the melting point of steel. Le't take a quick look.

Fires still burning in subterranean levels pose test to rescuers

Bobby Gray: "A 30-foot column carried high above the ground would be cherry red.

I

t wasn't in a molten stage,

but it was certainly too hot to put on a truck because the truck beds are all wood. We'd have to leave it on the side to cool. Sometimes the fire trucks would come by and hose them down." (Nine Months at Ground Zero, p. 66)

Nothing there about molten steel, just "cherry red" but let's take a look at how high "cherry red" means as far as the temperature of the steel beams are concerned.

As you can plainly see, a "cherry red" steel beam is nowhere near the melting point of steel. We know that temperatures were below 2000 degrees so let's take a look at the temperature chart for aluminum.

As you can see, the recorded temperatures at ground zero presented earlier were high enough to melt aluminum but not steel.

Edited March 12, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Apparently, you are mistaken. Temperatures readings of ground zero proves that .

No I'm not mistaken, I wasn't at GZ and I'm not the one who is claiming there was molten steel, the people who were actually at GZ are the ones you think are mistaken.

Temperature readings at GZ do not prove what you claim which highlights you lack of reading comprehension, because you can't disseminate the information from reports which are nothing more than surface temperatures and estimates.

That doesn't make any sense. I wasn't at the last launch of the space shuttle and didn't need to attend the occasion to know that it was launched. You have to prove that temperatures were high enough to melt steel and as of today, you have failed.

WOW! Not even a close comparison....lol

If I was sitting here and told you that those people who witnessed the shuttle launch witnessed no such thing, and I know better because I have over 40 years of space rocket engineering experience and those at the launch do not know jack, you would think I was crazy, yet strangely that is your position regard. lol

I do not need to prove that the temperatures were high enough especially when there are no accurate recordings of the temperatures within the rubble...lol

The witnesses said that temperatures reached as high at 2000 degrees, which is well below the melting point of steel, but well above the melting point of aluminum, which clearly indicates there was no way they saw steel nor were they trained to identify molten molten metal.

Some witnesses said it was more than that, some thought it was less, which clearly indicates that you ignore evidence to hold on to your pantomime debunking theory.

And I love your claim, they were not trained to identify molten steel, like you need a qualification and like iron workers and professors are not qualified enough?? ...lol

Desperation and stupidity on your part, but then that's panto debunking for you......lol

Actually, it does because nothing was recovered at ground zero that could have produced molten steel, and remember, they said that "red hot" steel beams were recovered, which in no way were in a molten state. Looking at the chart, the temperature of a red hot steel beam is nowhere near the melting point of steel.

Not just red hot steel beams after 7 weeks...lol

Some where white hot, some were bright orange, some would burst into flames when exposed to air, some were dripping in molten steel when they picked them out of rubble pile.

Highlighting again that you selectively choose which evidence you want to accept and ignore in your quest to become the panto king of debunking.

Just to remind you again...

He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, “If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted–it’s kind of like that.” He added, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot–perhaps around 2,000 degrees.” [Jeffrey R. Young, "Scholars Work to Rebuild the World Trade Center Virtually."]

Hmmm....white hot he says... his guess is around 2000 degrees and looking at the chart above, sounds like his guess could be about right...lol

Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7–a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.”

What temperature does steel vaporise?? 2000F....or am I guessing it never happened and the professor is clueless because internet debunking warroors have panto'd his silly ideas...lol

“America Rebuilds” comments on the fires here at 3:25.

http://www.youtube.c...V0xqVfs#t=3m25s <--Video has been removed

One of the workers says the fires were at one point “2,800 degrees.”

“Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF.” (Jeffrey W. Vincoli, Norman H. Black and Stewart C. Burkhammer, “SH&E at Ground Zero“)

Bronx firefighter and recovery worker Joe “Toolie” O’Toole remembered “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.” (Jennifer Lin, “Recovery Worker Reflects On Months Spent At Ground Zero,” Knight Ridder Newspapers, May 29, 2002.

What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. - (Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue)

All these people were mistaken cause from behind his keyboard, Skyeagle knows better!! The people who were actually at GZ, don't know squat apparently!!

Jesus, this debunking is so pathetic, it's panto...lol

Edited March 12, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

No I'm not mistaken, I wasn't at GZ...

Then, the settles it. No molten steel at ground zero.

Temperature readings at GZ do not prove what you claim which highlights you lack of reading comprehension,...

On the contrary I have posted temperature readings that proved my point, yet you have failed to post such readings to prove your point.To sum that up, you have no case.

“America Rebuilds” comments on the fires here at 3:25.

http://www.youtube.c...V0xqVfs#t=3m25s <--Video has been removed

One of the workers says the fires were at one point “2,800 degrees.”

Of course the video was removed because there were no such readings. Let's take a look here.

Excerpt from "The Will Jimeno Story": "The rescue workers soon started referring to the ruins of the World Trade Center as “the pile.” While it was burning, they also referred to it as “the b****” as in “the b**** is still burning.” The fires burned for three months after the attacks, and temperatures recorded from planes flying overhead reached as high as 2,000 degrees.

Nothing there that placed temperatures high enough to melt steel at ground zero.

What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse.

How are large columns of steel going to be fused together in a molten state and retain their shapes? If they were steel columns to begin with, then it is clear they were not in a molten state in the first place, however, with massive amounts of molten aluminum flowing between and onto the steel columns then chances are the molten mess was aluminum, not steel because the steel columns retained their basic shape, which should have told you that firefighter had misidentified molten aluminum. No real mystery there.

So once again, until you can supply anything capable of producing molten steel other than torches and wanes used by the clean-up crews, then you have no case because recorded temperatures rule out molten steel at ground zero. Let' going over the facts.

1. No source at ground zero to create pools of molten steel.

2. Recorded temperatures too low to melt steel at ground zero.

Edited March 12, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Then, the settles it. No molten steel at ground zero.

No it doesn't....lol I wasn't at GZ, you were not at GZ, the eyewitnesses were.

They claim they saw molten steel, there is nothing to settle...other than your fake debunking and your belief that they are wrong...lol

On the contrary I have posted temperature readings that proved my point, yet you have failed to post such readings to prove your point.To sum that up, you have no case.

I have posted the same thing as you, estimates and surface temperatures...lol

I have no case to make because the case is already made...lol You have not disproven it with your assumptions based on inaccurate temperature readings which do not reflect the true temperature within the rubble.

Of course the video was removed because there were no such readings.

The video was removed due to copyright infringements, but America Rebuilds is available on line and you'll still find the quote proving it exists..lol

Let's take a look here.

Nothing there that placed temperatures high enough to melt steel at ground zero.

2000 degrees...F or C?? Its not made clear in your quote but again, you'll assume that it is F....lol

Even though these images show the surface temperatures and do not reveal the heat within the rubble which doesn't disprove the existence of molten steel, or even vaporised steel as confirmed and examined by a professor and FEMA.

It doesn't matter how much you panto it, they are the facts, get used to them ...lol

p.s. Your link doesn't work either....lol

p.p.s At what temperature does steel vaporise??...450-2000F?? hahahahaha!!!!

Edited March 12, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

No it doesn't....lol I wasn't at GZ, you were not at GZ, the eyewitnesses were.

I wasn't at the launch of Apollo 11 either, but that doesn't mean the launch didn't occur.

They claim they saw molten steel, there is nothing to settle...

Considering that structural investigators at ground zero and at the salvage yards stated for the record there was no molten steel recovered from ground zero, it is settle, especially when considering that temperature data and readings were far too low to melt steel.

[Stundie]

I wasn't at the launch of Apollo 11 either, but that doesn't mean the launch didn't occur.

But you are claiming that the Apollo Launch didn't occur....lol

Eyewitnesses claimed the Apollo Launched....You were not there....you agree!!

Eyewitnesses claimed Molten Steel....You were not there...you disagree!!

See the difference and why you come across as someone whose a sandwich short of a picnic...lol

It really does feel like I am debating someone with no rational concept of reality.

Considering that structural investigators at ground zero and at the salvage yards stated for the record there was no molten steel recovered from ground zero, it is settle, especially when considering that temperature data and readings were far too low to melt steel.

Considering that there are lots of eyewitnesses who saw molten steel, even if the NIST or ACSE go on record and they didn't see molten steel, that doesn't mean it does not exist considering they didn't examine every piece of steel at GZ, it just means that ther NIST or ACSE did not see it.

Not sure why you are struggling to get your head around such simple concepts....lol

Nothing you have posted has disproven the eyewitness accounts and thinking because you are more experienced than those at GZ, which you clearly are not, doesn't make you right either...lol

Edited March 12, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

But you are claiming that the Apollo Launch didn't occur....lol

Apparently, you didn't understand a word I've said. I implied no such thing.

Eyewitnesses claimed Molten Steel....You were not there...you disagree!!

The structural engineers and investigators at ground zero and at the salvage yards have said said they saw no evidence of molten steel, and firefighters are not trained to identify molten metal and it was all very simple to understand because there was no temperature reading high enough to melt steel nor was any object recovered that could have produced molten steel at ground zero.

You also have to remember that Babe Ruth said he visited the WTC buildings in New York and yet claim the facade was stainless steel. I knew that was an incorrect assessment and I didn't need to be there to tell him that he was incorrect. All I had to do was to conduct research to tell Babe Ruth he was wrong despite the fact he was there. So who was correct? I was correct because I did my homework.

On another note, I have visited the WTC buildings but I didn't have to visit the WTC buildings to make a determination that BR was wrong.

Edited March 12, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Apparently, you didn't understand a word I've said. I implied no such thing.

Oh I understand perfectly what you have said and this is exactly what you have been implying for many days and pages.

This is why you haven't quoted everything I had said because it highlights how retarded your thinking and logic is...lol

Eyewitnesses claimed they saw Apollo being launched....You were not there....but you agree!!

Eyewitnesses claimed they saw Molten Steel....You were not there...but you disagree!!

If I were to claim that those who claimed they saw the Apollo being launched are wrong, including those who helped get Apollo up in to space and professors of rocket sciences and I clamed they actually saw Gemini because I claim I have more experience than them, then you would call me completely crazy.

Yet that is exactly your position....Let me show you...lol

If I you were to claim that those who claimed they saw the Apollo being launched molten steel are wrong, including those who helped get Apollo up to space clear up GZ and professors of rocket sciences structural engineering and I you clamed they actually saw Gemini molten aluminium because I you claim I you have more experience than them, then you I would call me you completely crazy.

I think the problem is you clearly do not understand a word I have said....lol

The structural engineers and investigators at ground zero and at the salvage yards have said said they saw no evidence of molten steel, and firefighters are not trained to identify molten metal and it was all very simple to understand because there was no temperature reading high enough to melt steel nor was any object recovered that could have produced molten steel at ground zero.

• Just because the ACSE and NIST didn't see the molten steel, doesn't mean that no molten steel exists considering they did not examine every single piece of steel.
  
• Firefighters are more than capable of identifying a molten metal once they have hosed it down and you do not have to be a metallurgist to recognise this.
  
• The temperatures within the rubble are truly unknown and the only measurements we have are the surface temperature and estimates, which do not prove that the temperature was not high enough.
  

It doesn't matter how many times you click your heels with your red shoes and repeat your mantra "There was no molten steel", you are not living in the fantasy land of Oz...lol

You also have to remember that Babe Ruth said he visited the WTC buildings in New York and yet claim the facade was stainless steel. I knew that was an incorrect assessment and I didn't need to be there to tell him that he was incorrect. All I had to do was to conduct research to tell Babe Ruth he was wrong despite the fact he was there. So who was correct? I was correct because I did my homework.

On another note, I have visited the WTC buildings but I didn't have to visit the WTC buildings to make a determination that BR was wrong.

BR was incorrect and he's is human after all and humans sometimes makes mistakes, there is no shame in that. It shows that he has morals and recognises his mistake as I'm sure he is not continuing on with his claim, page after page, making the same points again and again, never admitting he is wrong even after it has been proven that he was incorrect, unlike someone else we I could mention, hey Skyeagle?? lol

I have never been to the WTC and I knew the façade was made of aluminium, I didn't need to be there to make that determination either. Your point being what exactly......

That you were correct about the façade, so therefore everything you claim is correct?...lol

The façade was made of aluminium, ergo, they saw molten aluminium?...lol

This pantomime horse has entered the stage and the back end appears to be talking...lol

Edited March 12, 2013 by Stundie

[Babe Ruth]

Yes, it's fine by me if the facade was aluminum, and I posted that several weeks back.

I took a tour of the place in the early 80's and ended up with the wrong detail. My mistake.

[skyeagle409]

Oh I understand perfectly what you have said and this is exactly what you have been implying for many days and pages.

Apparently you didn't, which was evident in what you had posted.

This is why you haven't quoted everything I had said because it highlights how retarded your thinking and logic is...lol

If the road is a dead-end, why continue? Your post on Apollo has crash-landed on the launch pad because you did not pay attention to the details of what was written.

Just because the ACSE and NIST didn't see the molten steel, doesn't mean that no molten steel exists considering they did not examine every single piece of steel.

If you make the claim, then you have to produce the temperature data and source, otherwise, you have no case.

• Firefighters are more than capable of identifying a molten metal once they have hosed it down and you do not have to be a metallurgist to recognise this.
  

If firefighters hosed down the molten metal, then the molten metal wasn't hidden deep within the rubble, but in plain sight where aerial sensors did not record temperatures high enough to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

.

You don't seem to understand that firefighters are not metallurgist. What did Mr. Robertson say about his lack of knowledge to identify molten metal? You should remember him, you brought him up into the argument without reading the rest of the story.

• The temperatures within the rubble are truly unknown and the only measurements we have are the surface temperature and estimates, which do not prove that the temperature was not high enough.
  

The firefighter said the temperature at the core of the rubble was only 2000 degrees, not enough to melt steel.

It doesn't matter how many times you click your heels with your red shoes and repeat your mantra "There was no molten steel", you are not living in the fantasy land of Oz...lol

I deal in facts and evidence, not fantasy. To underline that point, present to us all, the temperature data that reached the melting point of steel. Present to us, a recovered object capable of producing molten steel during and after the collapse of the WTC buildings; torches and wanes used by clean-up crews at ground zero do not count.

BR was incorrect and he's is human after all and humans sometimes makes mistakes,...

Well, well, well. Now, you know why structural engineers and investigators who've examined the WTC steel did not agree with those who've claimed that molten steel was found at ground zero.

[skyeagle409]

Yes, it's fine by me if the facade was aluminum, and I posted that several weeks back.

Yet, you said that you were there and I have shown that even though firefighters were at ground zero, they can misidentify molten metal as well. Stundie has said that the firefighters were there at ground zero and I wasn't, which is why I have used to laws of physics, temperature data, knowledge and experience, and other evidence to backup my claim.

Looking in another direction, a firefighter later admitted the explosions they heard in the basement were attributed to falling elevators.

[DONTEATUS]

Skyeagle We need to have another reunion,WHats say you ?

Maybe we can erase most of that BR outta my mind !