skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #501 Share Posted February 13, 2013 You sound like one of those preachers..."Believe it, because I have over 40 years experience in the field"...of christianity....lol That provides me with an advantage to understand what is going on over those who don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #502 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Read this link. Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel. Think what that means. Sorry but experts disagree and specifically mention that the temperature was very unusual because of the melting/vaporised steel.Don't make me start spamming the forum with FEMA appendix C....I'll do it you know!! lol Edited February 13, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #503 Share Posted February 13, 2013 That provides me with an advantage to understand what is going on over those who don't. An advantage that you can't articulate or even prove with spamming the thread with repeat points which have been shot down too many times. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #504 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed A Fire Chief ’s Assessment After the 767 jet liner crashed into the world trade center building creating the worst terror attack in history, a fire burned for 56 minutes inside the World Trade Center building number two. The top 20 floors of the building collapsed on the 90 floors below. The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in 8 seconds... After a fire burned inside WTC tower number one for 102 minutes, the top 30 floors collapsed on the lower 80 floors. And the entire one hundred and ten stories of this building collapsed in 10 seconds. You can say the reason they collapsed was they were struck with a 185 ton jet airliner and the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse. http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html I might add that 2000 degrees is not high enough to melt steel. An advantage that you can't articulate or even prove with spamming the thread with repeat points which have been shot down too many times. lol Face the facts, I understand the nature of metals and the demolition process better than you. Sorry but experts disagree and specifically mention that the temperature was very unusual because of the melting/vaporised steel. No one saw melted steel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #505 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Collapse of the World Trade Center The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above. National Construction Safety Team (September 2005). Nothing there about explosives. Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #506 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) I might add that 2000 degrees is not high enough to melt steel.40 years of experience and all he's got to tell us is that 2000 degrees is not enough to melt steel......lolIf you had 40 years of experience, you certainly wouldn't post a link supporting such an obvious claim that people who don't have 40 years experience can google themselve. If you really had 40 years experience, then you would have just said it cause no one would have challenged you. Highlight the fraud....lol Face the facts, I understand the nature of metals and the demolition process better than you. hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!You know better than everyone it appears! hahahaha!!! Panto debunking at it's best, when all you have are fantasy claims, keep running to your supposed 40 years experience with knowledge than anyone can google......lol No one saw melted steel. We are back here again, no one saw it,except Dr Asantel who has more experience than you. I can post lots more which don't trump your 40 year of experience in some stuff that only you seem to care about. Edited February 13, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #507 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) There is no evidence he has hands on experience. Call the company. He's a worldwide leader in the demolltion industry. HINT!!! WTC Collapse initiation After the planes hit the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_Center Buckling is a sign that fire is affecting a steel structure, and that is another hint. Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #508 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Nothing there about explosives. But there was molten steel....We can find evidence for explosions, but not explosives cause none were looked for apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #509 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Call the company. He's a worldwide leader in the demolltion industry. HINT!!! No need, I know his job isn't doing the demolition, it's documenting it. lol http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_CenterBuckling is a sign that fire is affecting a steel structure, and that is another hint. That 40 years of experience for ya!! hahahahahahaha!!!Mixed with Wikipedia!! Right on!! hahahaha!! Edited February 13, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted February 13, 2013 #510 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Read this link. "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." Think what that means. I have read it. here is the full quote with context: "if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." so you need to think what it means, he is saying that jet fuel or a large quantity of wooden logs cannot melt steel, that's all. fema appendix c and molten concrete disprove your assertion, and your out of context quote says nothing to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #511 Share Posted February 13, 2013 40 years of experience and all he's got to tell us is that 2000 degrees is not enough to melt steel......lol Look it up! I am right on the money. If you had 40 years of experience, you certainly wouldn't post a link supporting such an obvious claim that people who don't have 40 years experience can google themselve. If you google my name, you will find that I am involved in other things for which I have not revealed. If you really had 40 years experience, then you would have just said it cause no one would have challenged you. Go out into the Internet, and bring your best expert, a leader in metals to me in the thread. I will be waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted February 13, 2013 #512 Share Posted February 13, 2013 skyeagle is the worst troll i've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #513 Share Posted February 13, 2013 But there was molten steel.... Considering that temperatures did not reach the levels needed to melt steel, you are mistaken. skyeagle is the worst troll i've ever seen. Well, where's my award? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #514 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) That 40 years of experience for ya!! hahahahahahaha!!! Mixed with Wikipedia!! Right on!! hahahaha!! I get the last laugh :lol: :lol: because the message is backed by experts. You will notice that I didn't not write the findings. National Construction Safety Team FATAL CONFUSION: A Troubled Emergency Response; 9/11 Exposed Deadly Flaws In Rescue Plan Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. ''About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red,'' the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. ''It's inevitable.'' Seconds later, another pilot reported: ''I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building.'' Those clear warnings, captured on police radio tapes, were transmitted 21 minutes before the building fell, and officials say they were relayed to police officers, most of whom managed to escape. Yet most firefighters never heard those warnings, or earlier orders to get out. Their radio system failed frequently that morning. Even if the radio network had been reliable, it was not linked to the police system. And the police and fire commanders guiding the rescue efforts did not talk to one another during the crisis. I will be back. Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #515 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Considering that temperatures did not reach the levels needed to melt steel, you are mistaken. No, you are mistaken, but you continue to believe your 40 year experience trumps fact and evidence from people who were there and examined wtc steel at GZ?? lol Well, where's my award?Over at the JREF forum, it's got my name on it!! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #516 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I get the last laugh :lol: :lol: because the message is backed by experts. You will notice that I didn't not write the findings. National Construction Safety Team Just like the evidence that molten/vaporised steel is backed by experts, which you ignore because they make a mockery of your so called fake expertise.Its time to stop playing the panto sonshine...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Fish Posted February 13, 2013 #517 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Well, where's my award?you wasted its time and it left home when you weren't looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #518 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) skyeagle is the worst troll i've ever seen. Joined 14 Apr 2006 - Lets round it off to 7 years / 23,923 posts = approx 3417 posts per year That 40 years experience is wasted there, he could have wrote a scientific paper rebutting all conspiracy claims insteading spamming the forum. Although it probably get laughed at for its citation and evidence lol Edited February 13, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #519 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) No, you are mistaken, but you continue to believe your 40 year experience trumps fact and evidence from people who were there and examined wtc steel at GZ?? lol Over at the JREF forum, it's got my name on it!! lol Of course experience counts in this case. I will let you know a little secret. Considering the construction of the WTC buildings, there was no way that thermite alone could have demolished those buildings. Furthermore, the buckling of the WTC buildings was an indication that fire was slowly weakening the steel structures and that fact was clearly evident on video and in that regard, it was a slam-dunk, that fire, not thermite, was affecting the structures. Next, any pre-planted explosives would have been detonated where the aircraft struck and yet, there were no secondaries, which should have told you that nothing of the sort was pre-planted. In order for explosives to be effective, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns, otherwise the blast wave will simply flow around the columns like the airflow around the wing of an airplane, which explains why steel columns of WTC2 in the 1993 bombing were not destroyed despite the columns sitting within the bomb crater. Anything pre-planted at the points of impact would have been dislodged and detonated, thus rendered ineffective. There was no evidence of thermite found in the rubble of the WTC buildings and ingredients of thermite was used in certain materials during their construction. Thermite is not an explosive and nor widely used for demolition implosions, nor is thermite as effective as RDX, which is why RDX is used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions. There were no thermite cuts found on the steel columns. In addition, RDX alone cannot knock down a building the size of the WTC buildings, which is why structural pre-weakening is required. Even with pre-weakening, RDX still requires the use of other high explosives to blast the columns off-center in order to facilitate the collapse, and such explosives must be firmly attached to the columns otherwise, the building will simply remain standing. 911 conspiracist got the wrong idea that thermite alone can bring down the WTC buildings, but that is a myth, especially when you consider the specifics of the construction techniques used. Question is: how are you going to spend many months pre-weakening each building and transport many truckloads of thermite, which is not as effective as RDX and dynamite to those upper levels without notice? Answer is; there was no way ti could have been done much less avoid detonation when the aircraft struck. Furhtermore: NIST emphasizes that there was no evidence that "any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC." This statement is consistent with their data plots of "predicted column temperatures", which "shows maximum temperature reached by each column" in that no temperature above 600 ºC is given for any of the steel columns. In other words, the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel. 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. Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #520 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) you wasted its time and it left home when you weren't looking. Call it back. On another note: Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm 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. http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted February 13, 2013 #521 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Just like the evidence that molten/vaporised steel is backed by experts,... What experts? There was no molten steel discovered in the rubble. Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11: (i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower. (i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse. But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the pertinent references: FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34: “Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal - possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).” NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43: “Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. 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.” Since there were no other metals in the Twin Towers that could melt at the temperatures present in WTC 1 & 2 during 9-11 – i.e. less than 800 C, it must be concluded that molten aluminum was produced in significant quantities from the melting of airframe debris in a least one Twin Tower (WTC 2). However, from the different trajectories of the aircraft strikes on WTC 1 & 2, it appears that the fuselage of the aircraft that struck WTC 2 came to rest closer to an exterior wall than the aircraft that struck WTC 1 which stopped deep inside this building. NIST report that the fires in WTC 2 were less active than those observed in WTC 1. In addition, the maximum temperature reached inside the Towers was probably higher for WTC 1 than for WTC 2 because Tower 1 burned for 102 minutes compared to 56 minutes for WTC 2. Given these facts, it is probable that molten aluminum was produced in both Towers, but was only observed at one location, namely spilling out of a broken window in WTC 2. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #522 Share Posted February 13, 2013 Of course experience counts in this case. I know you can't help but appeal to your own authority, but you clearly have no relevant experience. You can claim all you want that you have experience, but I wouldn't trust you with a pair of plastic safety scissors to cut paper. I will let you know a little secret. Considering the construction of the WTC buildings, there was no way that thermite alone could have demolished those buildings. That is not a secret and neither is it a fact.....lol I think you have taken panto debunking to new heights and are trying to turn into theatrical debunking. I will let you know a secret, considering the construction of the WTC buildings, there is no way comparitively small fires could have demolished those buildings. Trust me, I have more than 40 years experience and knowledge than you. Furthermore, the buckling of the WTC buildings was an indication that fire was slowly weakening the steel structures and that fact was clearly evident on video and in that regard, it was a slam-dunk, that fire, not thermite, was affecting the structures.Show us the buckling of the WTC building that is clearly evidence on video?? lolNext, any pre-planted explosives would have been detonated where the aircraft struck and yet, there were no secondaries, which should have told you that nothing of the sort was pre-planted.So if I planted explosives on the 1st floor, they would have detonated when the plane impacted 90 floors above it?? lolAnd what if they had detonated on impact, great, they are still doing there job! Making you entire point useless again. lol What a silly and moronic argument. Oh and there was plenty of evidence of secondary explosions after the initial impact. In order for explosives to be effective, they must be firmly attached to the steel columns, otherwise the blast wave will simply flow around the columns like the airflow around the wing of an airplane, which explains why steel columns of WTC2 in the 1993 bombing were not destroyed despite the columns sitting within the bomb crater. Anything pre-planted at the points of impact would have been dislodged and detonated, thus rendered ineffective.However, for fire to be effective, all you have to do is start it and instead of blasting steel columns, the fires will weaken a small portion and send the entire structure crashing down. I mean I really don't know why you don't start a fire demolition company. lol There was no evidence of thermite found in the rubble of the WTC buildings and ingredients of thermite was used in certain materials during their construction. This is a new one, ingredients of thermite was used in the construction?? hahahahaha!! Yeah, I've got the ingredients to make a nice victoria sponge in my cupboard, if I set fire to it, I'll get a nice victoria sponge of me tea right?? lol Another silly argument. Thermite is not an explosive and nor widely used for demolition implosions, nor is thermite as effective as RDX, which is why RDX is used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions. There were no thermite cuts found on the steel columns.Why do you lie?? You really are not fooling anyone but yourself!! lol You have been shown videos showing thermite being used as an explosive, proving that Thermite can be used as an explosive, it might not be effective as RDX or used in the demolition industry, but that doesn't mean it can't be used and more importantly. Evidence of thermite was never looked for as you the NIST stated. In addition, RDX alone cannot knock down a building the size of the WTC buildings, which is why structural pre-weakening is required. Lets simplify this for you to highlight how moronic your position is...lolPosition 1 : RDX alone can't knock down WTC. Position 2 : Fire alone can knock down WTC. RESULT : FIRE IS BETTER THAN RDX AT KNOCKING DOWN WTC!! Stunning logic there Skyeagle, makes you wonder why demolition teams don't use a box of matches and start a fire seeing as you seem to think it is more effective than RDX, highlighting all of your 40 years experience...lol Even with pre-weakening, RDX still requires the use of other high explosives to blast the columns off-center in order to facilitate the collapse, and such explosives must be firmly attached to the columns otherwise, the building will simply remain standing.ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz!! Sorry I drifted off, you are posting stuff I already know without your 40 years of experience.Proving that you can google and disproving your 40 years experience have been wasted if that is all you have to tell us. 911 conspiracist got the wrong idea that thermite alone can bring down the WTC buildings, but that is a myth, especially when you consider the specifics of the construction techniques used. And you got the wrong idea ifyou think fire can bring down the WTC buildings, which is a myth, especially when you consider the specifics of the construction techniques used.Question is: how are you going to spend many months pre-weakening each building and transport many truckloads of thermite, which is not as effective as RDX and dynamite to those upper levels without notice? Question is, why are you going to spend many months pre-weakening ANY building when a seven hour fire should do the trick?? lolAnswer is; there was no way ti could have been done much less avoid detonation when the aircraft struck.Another pointless point. Why do panto debunkers insist that any explosives have to be placed in the impact zone and would automatically denonate?? Furhtermore:In other words, the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel. But yet there was molten steel, so what does that tell you? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #523 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) What experts? Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” Or how about.. Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. Unless you are the worlds only expert.....lol There was no molten steel discovered in the rubble. Sorry but were the girders made of Aluminium? Its hilarious, you are not debunking anything, you just come across with tons of cognitive dissonance. lol Edited February 13, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted February 13, 2013 #524 Share Posted February 13, 2013 (edited) Call it back. On another note: Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface." On another note...Here is what happened when the NIST tried to recreate their molten aluminium..... ....lol[media=] [/media]Another fail for Skyeagle and his wacky Aluminium theories. Edited February 13, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belial Posted February 13, 2013 #525 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I actually forgot just how many experts live here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts