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 5
joc

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

3,684 posts in this topic

You failed to address my points, just repeated the same nonsense.

On the contrary, my response is based on facts, not fiction.

The Windsor's steel, as noted below...

"The steel columns at outer wall were made of two 7mm C-type steels.

Though the sizes of the steel columns at the outer walls were small and thin, they had almost no fire protection and were easy to lose the strength.

The steel columns of the WTC buildings lost their fire protection due to the impacts.

There was no structural damage under 3rd floor. The reason of not collapsing of the structure under 16th floor can be thought that the steel columns had fire protection and the effective activity of fire brigade."

You failed to understand that the steel frame of the Windsor buildings collapsed due to the raging fire, and remember, that building was not struck by a B-767. To put it simply, the steel structure failed due to fire as was the case in regards to the WTC buildings.

The Windsor Building Fire

This fire is one of the fires Conspiracy theorist like to point to when talking about high raise office fires. This fire lasted 26 hours. But what they don't tell you is that the first collapse happened only 2 hours and 30 minutes after the fire began. But why didn't the building fall completely? It was on fire for 26 hours. The answer is very simple. The building were constructed very differently than the WTC. Reinforced concrete was used in the core and under the 17th floor.

Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.

http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm

When steel is heated, it expands, and if there is no room for expansion, buckling will commence, and buckling of the buildings was reported prior to the collapse of those buildings. The temperatures within the buildings were high enough to weaken steel and add to the fact the WTC buildings suffered serious impact damage.

How did we soften 4130 steel in the air force? We simply threw the steel in an oven at a temperature less than the temperatures within the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/font][/size][/color]

Apparently, you failed the understand that the majority of investigators, architects, demolition experts who have concurred with the official story, have no ties to the US government.

Wrong.

The NIST investigation of the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and WTC 7, was conducted under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. The act gives NIST the responsibility for conducting fact-finding investigations of building failures that resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life. NIST has no regulatory authority regarding the results of investigations conducted under the NCST Act.

The investigation was officially announced on Aug. 21, 2002. When the NCST Act was passed in October of that year, it required that the WTC investigation be conducted under its authorities.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which had launched its Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) Study in early October 2001, sent a team of experts to review the steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards. These experts, including one from NIST, identified pieces of steel of potential interest to a follow-on investigation. Beginning in February 2002, NIST, on its own initiative, began identifying additional steel pieces of potential interest at the salvage yards and transporting them to NIST to preserve and secure the evidence in anticipation of launching its own investigation, which it announced in August 2002. NIST NCSTAR 1-3 fully documents the steel recovered from the site.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

NIST and FEMA are agencies of the government,

No ties, my butt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong.

The NIST investigation of the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2, and WTC 7, was conducted under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act. The act gives NIST the responsibility for conducting fact-finding investigations of building failures that resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life. NIST has no regulatory authority regarding the results of investigations conducted under the NCST Act.

Apparently, you were unaware that the following facts.

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

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

img_bannerlogo.jpg

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

If you think that heat cannot buckle or weaken steel, here's a wake-up call.

east-coast-heatwave-6462866.jpg

598540-buckled-tracks.jpg

148416-damage-to-moura-railway-line.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil and Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

http://911-engineers...-blanchard.html

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11. He says they did not show the “spikes” that would have been caused by explosions in the towers.

http://www.popularme...ld-trade-center

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will have to contact the good doctor to ask him if iron particles were there, eh? Perhaps you could do that.

I'm satisfied with the links I found. You are making claims about his work that are not confirmed by those links, it's up to you if you want to take it further.

As for me, I find it most unlikely that a jetfuel fire up high on the building is going to provide enough energy to create the heat that generated the noxious air.

It's not just the jet fuel, such large buildings would contain a lot of material that could burn, everything from office furnishings to parked cars, and the fires in the debris pile lasted for three months. Such long-lived fires are not unusual after building collapses, though they lasted even longer than usual in this case due to the size of the buildings.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/font][/left]

The steel columns of the WTC buildings lost their fire protection due to the impacts.

You say that as if it's a fact. You are really speculating.

No proof. Ergo, no fact.

Some of the steel in the impact zones would've lost its fire protection. Likewise, some of the steel in the impact zones would not have lost its fire protection.

But exactly how much of the steel lost or kept its protection....is not known, or even provable.

[/font][/left]

You failed to understand that the steel frame of the Windsor buildings collapsed due to the raging fire, and remember, that building was not struck by a B-767. To put it simply, the steel structure failed due to fire as was the case in regards to the WTC buildings.

You just don't get it.

Windsor had a very thin steel structure. It was (mostly) not fire-protected. It was also an exterior structure.

WTC had a very thick steel structure. It was (mostly) fire-protected. It was the core structure and exterior strucure.

You simply ignore all of the differences, as if they're irrelevant.

They both have steel in common, but that's about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm satisfied with the links I found. You are making claims about his work that are not confirmed by those links, it's up to you if you want to take it further.

It's not just the jet fuel, such large buildings would contain a lot of material that could burn, everything from office furnishings to parked cars, and the fires in the debris pile lasted for three months. Such long-lived fires are not unusual after building collapses, though they lasted even longer than usual in this case due to the size of the buildings.

I know you do not like Bollyn, Jones, Cahill or anybody else whose findings conflict with the official story. Yessir, I understand that, but still, this is rather fun, eh? We might have discovered a new method to run a steel foundry--fuel the fire with old office furniture and cars, so that steel might be melted.

From Bollyn's book, p. 265--The science library at UC Davis had a copy of the US Geological Survey's "Particle Atlas of the World Trade Center Dust" from 2005, which contained 2 micrographs of tiny droplets of iron that had been found in large amounts in the dust. There was also a micrograph of a teardrop shaped silicate droplet.

And from Dr. Jones, the arch nemesis of government story apologists, No explanation for the presence of iron-rich and silicate spheres is given in the USGS reports.

Somewhere on this thread, I think it was Sky who offered a number for the amount of aluminum used in the towers. While I don't trust his posts too much, let's accept that number as true and correct, for the sake of argument. Probably you know how much steel was used in building the towers. I do not, but I know the number is out there somewhere.

So, for the sake of argument, perhaps we could establish an approximate ratio of metals used in the tower construction, steel to aluminum? Once we establish that ratio, we might be able to extrapolate to some sort of probability as to whether any given pool of "molten metal" might be aluminum or steel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you do not like Bollyn, Jones, Cahill or anybody else whose findings conflict with the official story.

I've no problem with Cahill, just with the people who misquote his results.
From Bollyn's book, p. 265--The science library at UC Davis had a copy of the US Geological Survey's "Particle Atlas of the World Trade Center Dust" from 2005, which contained 2 micrographs of tiny droplets of iron that had been found in large amounts in the dust. There was also a micrograph of a teardrop shaped silicate droplet.
I refer you to my post #181. Iron microspheres are a very common product of metal-working. They don't need to be explained. Just look at this photo of welding fume particles.

http://nanoparticlelibrary.net/report.asp?ID=105

So, for the sake of argument, perhaps we could establish an approximate ratio of metals used in the tower construction, steel to aluminum? Once we establish that ratio, we might be able to extrapolate to some sort of probability as to whether any given pool of "molten metal" might be aluminum or steel?

It's not a matter of the proportion of the metals, it's a matter of the temperatures in the fires. Aluminium melts at a normal fire temperature, but you need really exceptional circumstances to provide the temperature to melt steel. There is not a shred of evidence that such temperatures occurred.

Edited by flyingswan
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say that as if it's a fact. You are really speculating.

It was no secret that fire protection was knocked off during the impacts.

No proof. Ergo, no fact.

You seem to have forgotten that experts in their field, which included demolition, civil engineers and architects, were those who have said the WTC buildings collapse because of fires, which simply proves that you are incorrect. All you are doing is broadcasting your lack of knowledge for all to see. :yes:

You just don't get it. Windsor had a very thin steel structure. It was (mostly) not fire-protected. It was also an exterior structure.

The buckling of the WTC buildings proved that the buildings collapsed due to fire. It is all very simple to understand but it seems you are having difficulty accepting reality and one reason is because of your lack of knowledge on the way fires affect steel and the other reason is because you deal in fantasy.

WTC had a very thick steel structure. It was (mostly) fire-protected.

And yet, the WTC buildings buckled before they collapsed which was an indication the steel structure was being affected by the fires. A simple logic to understand.

You simply ignore all of the differences, as if they're irrelevant.

I have a better knowledge of the way temperatures affect metal than you do because my job required such knowledge, which is why I am telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you do not like Bollyn, Jones, Cahill or anybody else whose findings conflict with the official story. Yessir, I understand that, but still, this is rather fun, eh? We might have discovered a new method to run a steel foundry--fuel the fire with old office furniture and cars, so that steel might be melted.

The fires didn't have to reach temperatures to melt steel, just enough to weaken the steel structures of those buildings.

And from Dr. Jones, the arch nemesis of government story apologists, No explanation for the presence of iron-rich and silicate spheres is given in the USGS reports.

Experts have discredited Steven Jones with facts and evidence and here you are using a discredited individual as a reference. Even those at BYU have distanced themselves from Steven Jones, so what does that tell you?

Somewhere on this thread, I think it was Sky who offered a number for the amount of aluminum used in the towers. While I don't trust his posts too much,...

What does that suppose to mean when you continue to use sources and websites that have long been discredited with facts and evidence? Now tell us, how many tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings? How many tons of aluminum was used to construct a B-767?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no problem with Cahill, just with the people who misquote his results.

I refer you to my post #181. Iron microspheres are a very common product of metal-working. They don't need to be explained. Just look at this photo of welding fume particles.

http://nanoparticlel...port.asp?ID=105

It's not a matter of the proportion of the metals, it's a matter of the temperatures in the fires. Aluminium melts at a normal fire temperature, but you need really exceptional circumstances to provide the temperature to melt steel. There is not a shred of evidence that such temperatures occurred.

Actually, there is much evidence that high temperatures occurred, including satellite photos from US satellites, photographic and witness testimony from the ground, and air samples taken on scene. And quite a few dozen firefighters and such who are sick, many have already died, from exposure to that poisoned air. That EPA pretended did not exist.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is much evidence that high temperatures occurred, including satellite photos from US satellites, photographic and witness testimony from the ground, and air samples taken on scene.

We already know that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but not steel. BTW, when are you going to provide us with information on the amount of aluminum that was used in the facade of the WTC buildings?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is much evidence that high temperatures occurred, including satellite photos from US satellites, photographic and witness testimony from the ground, and air samples taken on scene.

Here are the images, now show us where the temperatures were even near the temperature range to melt steel.

hotspots-compare.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep -em- On the Hunt Skyeagle ! :tu:

On your Six !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep -em- On the Hunt Skyeagle ! :tu:

On your Six !

Yepper!! :tu:

This past Saturday, I attended an outgoing dinner with my group for the commanding officer of the Wing I retired from. He was at the Pentagon when American 77 struck and we listened intently as he relived his experience as the aircraft struck. I spent most of Saturday afternoon preparing a special going-away gift for him, which was presented by a member of my chapter.

When 911 conspiracist claim that "no Boeing" struck the Pentagon or that the aircraft was a drone or missile, it truly reveals the extent of their ignorance, and overwhelmingly so. I am adding a photo that I took at the Boeing plant last month as an attachment. The nearest airliner you see is the new B-747-8.

post-32948-0-58487200-1359368004_thumb.j

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there is much evidence that high temperatures occurred, including satellite photos from US satellites, photographic and witness testimony from the ground, and air samples taken on scene.

Your saying it doesn't make it so. What actual evidence is there for temperatures above the melting point of steel?
And quite a few dozen firefighters and such who are sick, many have already died, from exposure to that poisoned air. That EPA pretended did not exist.

I'm not disputing that. While it has relevance to both the dust created in the collapse and to the underground fires in the debris pile, it has no relation to the molten steel claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part are you denying now Swan? Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal, and the air samples gathered show iron, strongly suggesting that the metal releasing the particles was iron. According to experts like Cahill and others, the only way such particles can be released is when the metal is boiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part are you denying now Swan? Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal, and the air samples gathered show iron, strongly suggesting that the metal releasing the particles was iron. According to experts like Cahill and others, the only way such particles can be released is when the metal is boiling.

What satellite photo shows such high temperatures? What eyewitness statement of molten metal shows either analysis to prove steel or measurement of such high temperatures? Where does Cahill, as opposed to someone (mis)quoting him, say anything about either iron microspheres or boiling metal?

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part are you denying now Swan? Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal, and the air samples gathered show iron, strongly suggesting that the metal releasing the particles was iron. According to experts like Cahill and others, the only way such particles can be released is when the metal is boiling.

Asking you to provide actual evidence for what you are claiming, rather than your biased and uninformed opinion / interpretation, is NOT the same as denying the existence of whatever it is you are claiming. You *really* need to learn that difference.

It is just a request for evidence, a request you have never been able (or at least, you've proven that you've previously lied about not being able) or willing to fulfill.

Your way of handling it just makes you look biased, willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest (ever determine the definition of that one yet...?)

Cz.

Edited by Czero 101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots? You do not accept the statements of Tully and Loizeaux? You do not accept the statements of men on the scene? You do not accept the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust from 2005?

Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge? Either way, that is a personal problem.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is contradicted by all the evidence, from start to finish. That is the fact you refuse to see, and it's quite OK, really. It is true that in many cases, ignorance, self-induced or otherwise, is to some measure blissful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots?...Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge? Either way, that is a personal problem.

We know that you have certain problems, but once again, show us where temperatures exceeded 2700 degrees in the images provided.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is contradicted by all the evidence, from start to finish.

We already know that claims of 911 conspiracist have been debunked by facts and evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part are you denying now Swan? Satellite photos, statements from persons there, or the air samples?

Persons saw molten metal...

Molten metal you say, and yet, you refuse to answer the question as to the amount of aluminum that is was in the construction of a typical B-767-200 and the amount of aluminum used in the facade of the WTC buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know this eyeWitness ! I have a Stiff thumb I know where to put !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots?

I'm familiar with them, they show temperature too low to melt steel.
You do not accept the statements of Tully and Loizeaux? You do not accept the statements of men on the scene?
I accept Tully saw molten metal, though it appears that Loizeaux didn't, he simply accepted the word of others for it. However, unless someone can explain how anyone, however qualified, can tell what metal it was just by eye, I cannot accept the identification of it as steel.
You do not accept the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust from 2005?
I accept the presence of iron microspheres, but they are a common result of metal working and do not indicate molten steel.
Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge? Either way, that is a personal problem.

I am not denying evidence of molten steel, as you have not produced any.

Sounds to me like you want the evidence to mean molten steel, whether it does or not. Your personal problem is confirmation bias.

Edited by flyingswan
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Swan

You are unfamiliar with satellite photos of hotspots? You do not accept the statements of Tully and Loizeaux? You do not accept the statements of men on the scene? You do not accept the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC Dust from 2005?

Sounds to me like chronic denial symptoms, or perhaps just a lack of knowledge? Either way, that is a personal problem.

The Official Conspiracy Theory is contradicted by all the evidence, from start to finish. That is the fact you refuse to see, and it's quite OK, really. It is true that in many cases, ignorance, self-induced or otherwise, is to some measure blissful.

There is an Official Conspiracy Theory? What does that make all the 'other' Conspiracy Theories? UnOfficial? :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.