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

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?!

No, I haven't forgot what he said about fires being responsible for the collapse, but you have forgotten that he saw molten steel haven't you??

Anyone who disagrees with the experts about the molten steel don't know jack squatl!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure idiotic delusional claptrap!! lol

Call it reality. :yes: Is it any wonder then, why I have said that claims of 911 conspiracist are ignorant-based? :w00t:

Y

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....TC/WTC-asce.pdf

My years of expertise in NOTHING trumps that of these pure amatuers of science. <---Who does that sound like to you?? lol Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I have thanks, even without 40 years of expertise in the metals. Would that explain the molten steel?

They are not experts in the field of metallurgy ,, which was evident in their comments in the absence of temperature readings at the level needed to melt steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Call it reality. :yes: Is it any wonder then, why I have said that claims of 911 conspiracist are ignorant-based? :w00t:

Y

Who cares what you say, you think you are right, even when you are evidently wrong...which is delusional.... :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My years of expertise in NOTHING trumps that of these pure amatuers of science. <---Who does that sound like to you?? lol

That doesn't work for you! :w00t:

No, I haven't forgot what he said about fires being responsible for the collapse,

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares what you say, you think you are right, even when you are evidently wrong...which is delusional.... :w00t:

How amusing considering you have yet to refute with evidence, the message I have conveyed. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My years of expertise in NOTHING trumps that of these pure amatuers of science. <---Who does that sound like to you?? lol

Apparently, you failed to read the list of experts and companies that have confirmed that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Do I need to repost the list for you again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

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

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not experts in the field of metallurgy ,,

Neither are you..but you don't have to be a expert in metallurgy to recognise a molten steel girder.......lol
which was evident in their comments in the absence of temperature readings at the level needed to melt steel.

You've got no counter evidence which shows what they saw anything other than steel, other than your opinions and so called expertise which both count for about 1 lira...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't work for you! :w00t:

It doesn't work for you either...yet you have fooled yourself it does......lol
Thank you!
No need to thank me, I don't deny evidence like molten steel...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How amusing considering you have yet to refute with evidence, the message I have conveyed. :whistle:

There is nothing to refute, your beliefs are faith based....not evidence based.

Thats why you believe that people who saw molten steel saw aluminium....lol

Hilarious debunking of the panto kind.....lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither are you..but you don't have to be a expert in metallurgy to recognise a molten steel girder.......lol

I could show a piece of solidified alumnum and many people will describe it as steel.

You've got no counter evidence which shows what they saw anything other than steel,...

In the absence of temperatures in the range to melt steel, the laws of physics comes in on the scene. :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't work for you either..

Oh yes it does, and experts have backed me up as well. :yes: Look at that list. Even your own professor has confirmed that fire was responsible for the collapse of he WTC buildings, and that indicated that I was correct all along.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.

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

Sorry but they do not have as much expertise as me, therefore I win....lol :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing to refute, your beliefs are faith based....not evidence based.

Well, did your professor confirm that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but they do not have as much expertise as me, therefore I win....lol :w00t:

A list of highly respected experts who use the laws of physics to back up their conclusion that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. I might add that iron, which has been stored for many days, has been known to create temperatures high enough to start fires, but I guess you didn't know that, and now, you know the rest of the story. :yes:

Let's take another look.

There are 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics)who do not question the NIST report.

In other words, they see no problem with the official report.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't work for you either...yet you have fooled yourself it does......lol

No need to thank me, I don't deny evidence like molten steel...lol

Impossible considering that temperatures were too low to melt steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I could show a piece of solidified alumnum and many people will describe it as steel.
I'm sure with hypnotic repeating of spamantra trolling with an overdose of delusions, you think you could convince many people that with your expertise, you could polish a turd into a diamond.

But you are fooling no one..lol

In the absence of temperatures in the range to melt steel, the laws of physics comes in on the scene. :yes:

In the absence of temperatures under the rubble, so there are no laws broken.

So either all the people who mentioned molten steel independently at different times at GZ are suffering from mass hallucination, or they actually saw molten steel.

The laws of physics says they didn't suffer from mass hallucinations. lol

Well, did your professor confirm that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

Did the professor confirm that he saw molten steel too?? ;) lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to support Skyeagle 409 all the way here, there isn't the evidence for this type of conspiracy, my own thoughts are that the United States Government knew that something was going to happen in New York and Washington DC on 9/11, although i don't think they knew it was going to be so awful. Perhaps they didn't apply security as they should have, being a democracy they had to fire up voters, for the aim was to invade countries like Iraq that in the end was found to have nothing to do with 11th September 2001, politics can be crazy!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impossible considering that temperatures were too low to melt steel.

You do not know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures.

40 years...and you are still being schooled......lol

They saw molten steel, so the temperatures must have been hot enough.

Unless you think the girders are aluminium?? :blink: lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to support Skyeagle 409 all the way here, there isn't the evidence for this type of conspiracy, my own thoughts are that the United States Government knew that something was going to happen in New York and Washington DC on 9/11, although i don't think they knew it was going to be so awful. Perhaps they didn't apply security as they should have, being a democracy they had to fire up voters, for the aim was to invade countries like Iraq that in the end was found to have nothing to do with 11th September 2001, politics can be crazy!

Sorry but I thought Skyeagle was just fooling himself, looks like I was wrong...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure with hypnotic repeating of spamantra trolling with an overdose of delusions, you think you could convince many people that with your expertise, you could polish a turd into a diamond.

But you are fooling no one..lol

Apparently, you are not getting the message that fire was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings and that recorded temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel.

In the absence of temperatures under the rubble, so there are no laws broken.

Go back and read case histories of other fire incidents around the country where fires continued to smolder for days within the rubbles.

So either all the people who mentioned molten steel independently at different times at GZ are suffering from mass hallucination, or they actually saw molten steel.

He must have, considering there was no source to raise temperatures needed to melt steel,and remember, thermite alone could not have brought down the WTC buildings and I spelled out the specifics as to why thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions.

RDX, which is much more effective than thermite, and yet the implosion process using RDX still requires that a building be structurally pre-weakened and the use of explosives to facilitate the implosion process, which takes many months. In the case of a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX, it took about half a year to prepare the bridge for demolition and that was at ground-level.

911 conspiracist got the wrong idea that thermite was capable of demolishing the WTC buildings which is not the case at all. Thermite cannot bring down buildings the size of the WTC towers.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures.

40 years...and you are still being schooled......lol They saw molten steel, so the temperatures must have been hot enough.

They didn't see molten steel. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I thought Skyeagle was just fooling himself, looks like I was wrong...lol

You are wrong and have been since you began posting. Why were you unaware iron can burn for days and stored iron can start fires? BTW, did you know you can start fires using steel wool?

Edited by skyeagle409

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.