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

I actually forgot just how many experts live here.

Just for the record...I do not claim to be an expert. :)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

experts explain, trolls and idiots merely assert, ignore and deny.

here is something that needs an explanation

gun_notice.jpg

DSC_7415.JPG

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

experts explain, trolls and idiots merely assert, ignore and deny.

here is something that needs an explanation

gun_notice.jpg

DSC_7415.JPG

What exactly do you need explained? As it says the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms had firearms in building six.

Also the FBI had an office in the north tower, so cant really see why it would be a surprise to find guns at ground zero.

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a disgrace to this site that there are 9/11 "troothers" around. These dimwits should stay at their conspiracy sites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said NOTHING about the passenger or victims list. Try to stay on topic please. But since you mentioned it, since the lists released by the AIRLINES (note, not the FBI which I was talking about) were ALWAYS listed as VICTIMS lists and the manifests weren't released until the trial, what is the problem? Is it that you like to be wrong?

Prove it. Find ONE article released after the official list of hijackers was released on the 27th of September that says there are some still alive. I'll bet you can't and won't even try. Perhaps you should try to actually READ the link I provided.

Those were covered fine by others. You have NOT proved they were impossible. I was also commenting on what I have knowledge of. Would you prefer I speculate wildly on subjects I know little about? I'd just end up looking like you then.

Prove the maneuver was impossible. I'll bet you can't.

I was referring to your post #436 in which you mentioned, regarding the hijackers identities, "...final list with pictures was released". I was commenting on the editing and evolution of the various lists, passengers, victims, hijackers, whatever, that happened. First passenger lists, derived from airline passenger manifests, did not include the hijackers, were then called 'victim list' to distinguish the artificial difference. The story is the hoax, not the events.

Tortured logic is required to make the OCT even begin to fit the facts.

Here Frenat, for the umpteenth time, I will explain my position on the so-called Hani Maneuver.

Given the right airplane and pilot combination, and a number of practice sessions, the maneuver itself is certainly POSSIBLE.

What makes it IMPOSSIBLE is the combination of the following: a rookie pilot with a very bad reputation amongst flight instructors, out of a Cessna and into a Boeing for the FIRST TIME IN HIS LIFE (and that is something a nonpilot cannot fully appreciate), completing it successfully and perfectly on his first try.

You may buy into that fairy tale Frenat, but I cannot.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly do you need explained? As it says the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms had firearms in building six.

Also the FBI had an office in the north tower, so cant really see why it would be a surprise to find guns at ground zero.

:D

are you twelve years old or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

experts explain, trolls and idiots merely assert, ignore and deny.

here is something that needs an explanation

gun_notice.jpg

DSC_7415.JPG

Look at that picture and tell us what is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

a838_abolhassan_astaneh_2050081722-21407.jpg

“I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.”

I might add that the photo does not depict a melting girder and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. :no: There are no signs that piece of steel was ever in a molten state.

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.

He did not see any running molten steel. :no: As noted in the temperature readings, the temperatures never reached the level to melt steel. What did I post the other day in regards to fires that continue smolder for days? What have I said about exothermic reactions of iron?

If they claim that molten steel was found, then they are not experts in the field of metals because the temperatures never reached the level to melt steel and it doesn't take an expert to figure that out, just plain old common sense. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

And, he has said that fires, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Sorry but were the girders made of Aluminium? :blink:

Let's put it this way, the WTC buildings were covered with aluminum. I credit Czeros 101 for posting this in an earlier post.

104_668.jpg

South tower of the World Trade Center

The highly reflective aluminum sheathing of the Twin Towers added to the building’s impact as a memorable landmark.

104_204.jpg

ghost.gif

Aluminum cladding

Rough-sorted aluminum cladding from the World Trade Center at the Staten Island recovery site.

http://amhistory.si....cord.asp?ID=104

In addition:

105_465.jpg

ghost.gif

World Trade Center structural joint

Description: This damaged structural bracket from the World Trade Center was recovered from the debris pile.

Context: This viscoelastic damper connected a floor truss to an exterior steel column of the World Trade Center. Building movement caused by wind was a major concern to the architects and engineers designing the 110-story towers. They cleverly mitigated apparent building movement by using these dampers to allow the exterior of the building to sway slightly under wind load, while the floor remained largely stationary.

The damper and other floor attachment brackets were also a point of failure leading to the towers' collapse. When the intense fire heated the 60 foot-long floor trusses, they eventually distorted and pulled free of their attachments to the exterior columns. As the upper floors of the towers fell, the weight then “pancaked” the lower floors, breaking floor truss attachments unaffected by heat.

What have I said before in that regard?! I've provided hints and answers as I described the specifics of aerodynamic heating related to the airframe of the SR-71.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note...Here is what happened when the NIST tried to recreate their molten aluminium..... :w00t: ....lol

[media=]

[/media]

Another fail for Skyeagle and his wacky Aluminium theories.

What does the silvery color of aluminum indicate? Look at the color chart of aluminum and what is it that you don't see and why?

Aluminum

alum_casting_equipment.jpg

molten.jpg

htchar1.gif10200401-molten-aluminum-pours-from-crucible.jpg

FPI602180326AR_b.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have taken panto debunking to new heights and are trying to turn into theatrical debunking.

911 conspiracist do a good job of debunking themselves. For an example, some have said that thermite was the reason why there is molten steel, but there is no molten steel and if they checked records, they would have found that it is not uncommon for fires to smolder for days.

Fire at Yuma-area packing shed to smolder for days

YUMA, AZ (AP) -A fire that destroyed a group of produce packing sheds east of Yuma is expected to smolder for days as piles of burned cardboard cools and foam building insulation continues to send up smoke.

http://www.kpho.com/...molder-for-days

Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

Read more: http://www.timesunio...p#ixzz2KnTqftoR

Fire Expected to Smolder for Days at Nebraska Carpet Padding Warehouse

A fire caused an estimated $5 million damage to a carpet padding warehouse early Wednesday and residents were told to expect a considerable amount of smoke as the fire continued to burn and smolder.

http://www.firehouse...dding-warehouse

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.

I will let you in on another secret, it was obvious the fires within the WTC buildings were not small. :no:

The Investigation

The American Society of Civil Engineers and FEMA conducted an in-depth investigation of the World Trade Center. The team members included the director of the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the senior fire investigator for the National Fire Protection Association, professors of fire safety, and leaders of some of the top building design and engineering firms, including Skidmore Owings & Merrill in Chicago, Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire in Seattle, and Greenhorne & O'Mara in Maryland.

It concluded that massive structural damage caused by the crashing of the aircrafts into the buildings, combined with the subsequent fires, were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

Now, what have I been saying all along?

Trust me, I have more than 40 years experience and knowledge than you.

Show us the buckling of the WTC building that is clearly evidence on video?? lol

OK!

So if I planted explosives on the 1st floor, they would have detonated when the plane impacted 90 floors above it?? lol

Ever heard of secondary explosions? :w00t:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might add that the photo does not depict a melting girder and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. :no:
hahahahaha!! Here we go round the delusional roundabout! hahahahaha!!

Did I ever say or indicate there was a melting girder in the picture?

I was showing you a picture him examining some steel to show that unlike you, he has witnessed the steel firsthand and not sitting being his computer being an internet warrior on debunking pantomime mission.

There are no signs that piece of steel was ever in a molten state.
And I never claimed it was in a molten state.

Your strawman burns with ease......lol

He did not see any running molten steel. :no:
I think I'll take the word of an expert on the scene rather than some internet debunking warrior whose think his googling skills equate to 40 years of experience, in something or another.

He saw molten steel.....stop crying about it, you are wrong.......lol

As noted in the temperature readings, the temperatures never reached the level to melt steel.
The temperature under the rubble was never measured and there was molten steel. lol
What did I post the other day in regards to fires that continue smolder for days?
I aint got a clue and neither do I care......lol
What have I said about exothermic reactions of iron?
So now there were exothermic reactions?? lol This is a new one! Does that mean there was molten steel then after all?? :blink:
If they claim that molten steel was found, then they are not experts in the field of metals because the temperatures never reached the level to melt steel and it doesn't take an expert to figure that out, just plain old common sense. :yes:
Common sense says that if an expert at GZ says that he saw molten girder/evaporated steel, he didn't see it because an internet warrior thinks he knows better and it discredits his expertise. hahahahahaha!!!
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And, he has said that fires, not explosives, were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
He did, but he also said he saw molten steel too.
Let's put it this way, the WTC buildings were covered with aluminum.
And I never said they were not covered in Aluminium....lol

You are the king of strawmen. lol

However, metal girders are not aluminium.....do you understand the difference? lol

I credit Czeros 101 for posting this in an earlier post.
I don't think Czeros is happy with him being associated with your strawman.

Pure pantomime debunking.....lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What does the silvery color of aluminum indicate? Look at the color chart of aluminum and what is it that you don't see and why?

Aluminum

alum_casting_equipment.jpg

molten.jpg

htchar1.gif10200401-molten-aluminum-pours-from-crucible.jpg

FPI602180326AR_b.jpg

Funny isn't it, in all those pictures you have found aluminium to be glowing red hot, every single one of them has a dark background or are photos taken indoors.

None of them glowing bright in daylight conditions like the stuff pouring out of WTC2. lol

Edited by Stundie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a disgrace to this site that there are 9/11 "troothers" around. These dimwits should stay at their conspiracy sites.

They just don't know any better, which is evident because they are not in the habit of doing their homework properly. :no:

Funny isn't it, in all those pictures you have found aluminium to be glowing red hot, every single one of them has a dark background or are photos taken indoors.

Isn't it funny that 911 conspiracist were duped in that regard as they were when Eddie Current posted that faked video of WTC7? :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did, but he also said he saw molten steel too.[/quuote]

No he didn't because temperatures never reached the melting point of steel. He saw something else, most likely aluminum.

Considering that the WTC buildings were covered with aluminum, which has a melting point within the range of the fires, and the airframe of the B-767 is constructed of aluminum, what more is there to say?

However, metal girders are not aluminium.....do you understand the difference? lol

I knew where you were going with it so I beat you to the punch. :yes:

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
911 conspiracist do a good job of debunking themselves.
You would think that seeing you are delusional.....lol
For an example, some have said that thermite was the reason why there is molten steel, but there is no molten steel and if they checked records, they would have found that it is not uncommon for fires to smolder for days.
I checked the records and there are numerous accounts of molten steel, that is a fact you can't deluded yourself doesn't exist.

Fires didn't smolder for days either, they were described as raging inferno, lava pools, dripping metal etc....if you had bothered to check the records.

I will let you in on another secret, it was obvious the fires within the WTC buildings were not small. :no:
I'll let you in on a secret, everyone knows you are not that smart Skyeagle. lol
Never heard of secondary explosions? :w00t:
Of course I have....lol

However, you said that if explosives were planted in the towers, they would be detonated even if they were planted many floors below in the impact zone.

Highlighting again how moronic your position is.......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't it funny that 911 conspiracist were duped in that regard? :yes:
Nowhere near as funny as watching you dupe yourself that your internet skills trumps that of a professor and many other witnesses who said they saw molten steel at GZ.....lol :w00t: Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think that seeing you are delusional.....lol

How amusing considering you have provided no evidence to back up what you claimed. :w00t:

I checked the records and there are numerous accounts of molten steel, that is a fact you can't deluded yourself doesn't exist.

Considering the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, they saw something else, most likely, aluminum.

Fires didn't smolder for days either, they were described as raging inferno, lava pools, dripping metal etc....if you had bothered to check the records.

Ever heard of exothermic reactions of iron? Look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere near as funny as watching you dupe yourself that your internet skills trumps that of a professor and many other witnesses who said they saw molten steel at GZ.....lol :w00t:

My experience trumps those who've have claimed that molten steel was found in the absence of evidence and temperatures needed to melt steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere near as funny as watching you dupe yourself that your internet skills trumps that of a professor and many other witnesses who said they saw molten steel at GZ.....lol :w00t:

Remember, your professor has said that fires were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, but what message have I been conveying to you? Go on, post where he said that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, or do you want me to do it for you?!

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How amusing considering you have provided no evidence to back up what you claimed. :w00t:
This thread is a record of that evidence......lol
Considering the temperatures never reached the melting point of steel, they saw something else, most likely, aluminum.
No they didn't......lol That is why you can't cite a single person at GZ who said they saw molten aluminium....lol

Hilarious pantomime debunking...lol

Ever heard of exothermic reactions of iron? Look it up.
Yes I have thanks, even without 40 years of expertise in the metals. Would that explain the molten steel? Or didn't it exist again?? Make your mind up...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience trumps those who've have claimed that molten steel was found in the absence of evidence and temperatures needed to melt steel.

Pure idiotic delusional claptrap!! lol

Your expertise doesn't trump the professor or the strucutal engineer who helps building the towers.

What a moronic thing to say......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis

Introduction and Failure Scenario

The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the

forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a

total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the

steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused

viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the

tower and of the columns in the building core.

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

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.