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

...and way too high to be caused by jetfuel and gravity.

Not too high for welding crews during the construction of the WTC buildings nor cleanup crews using torches during the cleanup process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends which primer you test. This one gives a good match:

http://oystein-debat...e-standard.html

The primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After some five years of me trying to explain this to you, what you fail to show any appreciation of is the probabilities involved in going from the "best estimate" to "severe" cases. You use words like "astronomical odds" and "fantasy" and "not within the bounds of reality", when what you should be saying is "a little less probable, but well within the expected margins".

And after five years you still show hopeless incomprehension of such a simple argument that we have been over in excruciating detail. Honestly, I don’t think anyone can be that stupid. I think you are just trying to blag your way through and deliberately confuse the issue – I’m sure you take some sort of pleasure from it.

When I say “not within the bounds of reality” it is not even an argument reliant on probabilities as you seem to think. It is simply a note that the damage sustained in NIST’s severe case model was greater than the damage seen in reality on 9/11. It’s as simple as that. Once the simulated level of damage exceeded the actual damage on 9/11, then the simulation becomes the realm of fantasy, not a reality of 9/11. How do you fail to grasp such a simple argument over and over?

As for the rest, it’s not my problem that you are hopeless or deliberately feigning ignorance of probability theory. It is not the individual variables or their parameters that are a problem or provide a great swing in probability. No. It is when we adjust seven, eight, or nine variables all at once, specifically in one direction to favour collapse, that the probability begins that march toward astronomical. It’s like tossing a straight seven, eight or nine heads in a row on a coin... but I know you could not even grasp the probabilities involved at that basic level.

Ah well, I don’t think there will be any spark of comprehension in you at this stage, not from someone who has a personal preference against the conclusion. At least I had you admit that NIST demonstrated each tower was more likely to remain standing than to collapse. I’ll accept that's as far as I'm going to get with you, take that victory and leave it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, a correctly planned demolition setup would produce the results 100% of the time. Indeed, even forgetting the heavily tilted odds, that is what a large body of additional evidence and circumstance indicate occurred.

In the case of 911, there is no evidence that explosives were used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least I had you admit that NIST demonstrated each tower was more likely to remain standing than to collapse. I’ll accept that's as far as I'm going to get with you, take that victory and leave it there.

The WTC buildings remained standing after the initial impacts, however, fire spelled disaster for WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, which resulted in the collapse of those buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And after five years you still show hopeless incomprehension of such a simple argument that we have been over in excruciating detail. Honestly, I don't think anyone can be that stupid. I think you are just trying to blag your way through and deliberately confuse the issue – I'm sure you take some sort of pleasure from it.

Usual insult to make up for lack of argument.
When I say "not within the bounds of reality" it is not even an argument reliant on probabilities as you seem to think. It is simply a note that the damage sustained in NIST's severe case model was greater than the damage seen in reality on 9/11. It's as simple as that. Once the simulated level of damage exceeded the actual damage on 9/11, then the simulation becomes the realm of fantasy, not a reality of 9/11. How do you fail to grasp such a simple argument over and over?
The most important damage, that to the core structure, isn't observable, all there is to go on is the NIST calculations and the exterior damage. You are claiming to know the actual damage, but you don't acknowledge this uncertainty.
As for the rest, it's not my problem that you are hopeless or deliberately feigning ignorance of probability theory. It is not the individual variables or their parameters that are a problem or provide a great swing in probability. No. It is when we adjust seven, eight, or nine variables all at once, specifically in one direction to favour collapse, that the probability begins that march toward astronomical. It's like tossing a straight seven, eight or nine heads in a row on a coin... but I know you could not even grasp the probabilities involved at that basic level.
When you yourself say that all the variations are in one direction, that is they can all be modelled by a change in one parameter which in this case is aircraft velocity, you effectively admit that there is a single range of probability, not a lot of separate ranges where probabilities can be multiplied.
Ah well, I don't think there will be any spark of comprehension in you at this stage, not from someone who has a personal preference against the conclusion. At least I had you admit that NIST demonstrated each tower was more likely to remain standing than to collapse. I'll accept that's as far as I'm going to get with you, take that victory and leave it there.

Another insult, another carefully mined quote, another ludicrous claim of victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

The NIST tests were on Tnemec primer. The match is for LaClede primer, that may well have a lower ignition temperature. However, there's no real evidence that the material that matches LaClede primer in Harrit's XEDS spectra is the same as he used for the ignition tests. Lots of materials will ignite in air, especially when finely divided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So exactly how are you so sure the temperatures were enough to melt steel?
Again, this is typical panto debunking behaviour....lol

I do not know what the temperatures were and never claimed to know, but if there was molten steel as witnessed by many people, then the temperatures were hot enough.

Can you answer my question Stundie.

Are eye witness accounts infallible....yes or no?

Of course they are, but just because they can be infallible, doesn't mean there are accounts are.

You need supporting evidence that there accounts are wrong and that evidence has yet to be presented by either you or Skyeagle, who think evidence his is own so called expertise.

Like I stated before, eye witness reports are not infallible, so if you prefer to take them at face value without any supporting evidence, be my guest.
And I've never claimed they were, so if you prefer to NOT take them at face value without any supporting evidence, be my guest, although I will laugh you for using such retarded logic.
Of course Stundie. Nobody claimed molten aluminium, so obviously that makes it molten steel. Right.
Yes, because nobody else is claiming the molten metal is anything else, unless you have evidence it is wrong??
Walk around with a picture of molten aluminium (2nd photograph I posted) and ask 10 random people what it is a picture of. I can guaruntee you that more than 70% will say molten steel.
But the people at GZ were not looking at pictures, they were actually witnessing it firsthand.
I have already done this at work, not 1 person stated molten aluminium....do you know why Stundie?
Cause it wasn't aluminium.
So now you move goal posts Stundie? Cooled down?
Moved the goalposts?? lol What do you think the firefighters did, just stand there and watch it glowing forever or put the fires out/cool it down so it could be removed?
What those people at GZ claimed they saw was a molten substance, which by all means is not cooled down.
Some describe it as molten metal, some people specify it was molten steel.
Since you were not able to discern the differences of all 3 photographs. I will answer that for you.

1. Molten Glass

2. Molten Aluminium

3. Molten Steel

Well they are photos after all and as I stated, its harder to tell from a photo. If I was actually there, it would be easy to identify because all you would have to do is let some cool down to identify it.

Like those at GZ.

So apperantly occular identification of molten substances is not accurate, is that fair enough?
Who said they judged it from the occular identification?? lol I never, it is something panto debunkers assume....lol
So yes, even with an expert, tests would be needed to figure out the make up of a molten substance.
It just needs to be cooled down and it would soon be identifiable, not need to be an expert.
A non-expert's opinion on what that molten substance is based on visual identification is not infallible.
Good job there was plenty of experts there who were able to identify it.
So if an expert were to look at a molten substance is he/she able to discern that it's previous form prior to melting was a girder?
He didn't look at some molten substance and work out what it was....whoever said that?? :blink:

He said he saw the melting of girders, which would mean that there was girders in the process of being melted.

I doubt that Stundie.
You have every right to doubt it, but you should be challenging Skyeagles assertion that it was aluminium seeing as there is no evidence for it
Unless of course, your claim is the expert saw a steel girder melt in front of his/her eyes.

Which at that point, I would love for you to cite your evidence.

No problems.....

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

so therefore, the red chips are not primer paint...but you had previously claimed the red chips harrit et al analysed were primer paint. so once more logic and facts are tripping you up. the other occasion being where you stated robertson never stated molten steel, yet the video I put up proves he did. the third occasion was when you stated in the absolute without evidence that the temperature never reached the melting point of steel, and yet plenty of evidence given to you suggests it did. it would be honest if you at least acknowledged your mistakes, but you won't, you'll ignore it all and just repeat yourself again 10 pages later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NIST tests were on Tnemec primer. The match is for LaClede primer, that may well have a lower ignition temperature. However, there's no real evidence that the material that matches LaClede primer in Harrit's XEDS spectra is the same as he used for the ignition tests. Lots of materials will ignite in air, especially when finely divided.

there is no match for LaClede primer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so therefore, the red chips are not primer paint...

On the contrary, the chips are from primer paint.

XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) are very much consistent with the the paint formulation of LaClede Standard Primer.

the other occasion being where you stated robertson never stated molten steel, yet the video I put up proves he did.

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story, which was posted. Now, go back to my post and report what I presented in that regard.

...the third occasion was when you stated in the absolute without evidence that the temperature never reached the melting point of steel,

The infrared mages proved my point. To further my point, there was no molten steel and you might want to check the rest of the story in regards to that so-called molten concrete because it seems that you were unaware of what was sitting next to that object, in which case, you probably would have had second thoughts before you posted that photo.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not melted steel.

NotMelted.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, the chips are from primer paint.

"XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) are very much consistent with the the paint formulation of LaClede Standard Primer."

finding a single property that is similar does not make two things the same - a daffodil is the same colour as a lemon but they are not the same.

you are claiming that the primer paint reduces its constituent iron oxide to molten iron at 420 celcius, this cannot be be caused by burning "paint", unless of course its some sort of thermitic incendiary paint.

please explain with your declared expertise in metals how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

no doubt you have already forgotten the long list of evidence for extremely high temperatures you have been given, but here is something else to consider:

"Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue"

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/02/science/scarred-steel-holds-clues-and-remedies.html?pagewanted=2

the sfrm fireproofing requires temperatures in excess of 1200 celcius to decompose and further temperature increase to create this glassy residue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

finding a single property that is similar does not make two things the same - a daffodil is the same colour as a lemon but they are not the same.

you are claiming that the primer paint reduces its constituent iron oxide to molten iron at 420 celcius, this cannot be be caused by burning "paint", unless of course its some sort of thermitic incendiary paint.

please explain with your declared expertise in metals how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

First of all there was no incendiary paint. Do you see any in the following photos?

fig-D-1.jpg

fig-D-4.jpg

fig-D-5.jpg

fig-D-14.jpg

fig-D-18.jpg

fig-D-13.jpg

fig-D-11.jpg

Secondly, are you familiar with exothermic reactions involving iron? Did you know that in some cases, stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires? Did you know that steel wool can also be used to start fires?

no doubt you have already forgotten the long list of evidence for extremely high temperatures you have been given, but here is something else to consider:

"Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue"

http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=2

You mean, glassy residue that can be produced in fires from a number of sources within the WTC buildings, which can combine with crushed concrete and other contents?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to describe the pantomimes of debunker logic....Imagine a group of people on safari and they witness an incident..

Some describe a big cat catching a gazzelle, some are more specific and say it was a lion that caught the gazelle.

Debunker logic says it was not a lion, but a leopold and that none of them are qualified to say what type of cat it was cause they are not big cat experts.

Here is a question for the panto villans in this debunking play house, just out of curiousity, lets say you are at GZ and you removed some rubble and find some strange molten metal, how do you establish what it is?

A) Just pull a random metal out of the hat and say its metal X?

B )Don't bother trying to identify it, not even asking anyone else and just refer to it as molten metal?

C) Cool it down and examine what metal it is?

D) Just repeat the word aluminium, regardless of what metal it is cause when you look at it, you was in a different world and what other say it was who actually examined it.

Edited by Stundie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all there was no incendiary paint. Do you see any in the following photos?
so when a pointed question is put to you, you respond with your own questions of no obvious relevance. this is evasive behaviour.

here is the question you evaded:

explain how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

Secondly, are you familiar with exothermic reactions involving iron? Did you know that in some cases, stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires? Did you know that steel wool can also be used to start fires?
more bizarre unrelated questions instead of answers to a pointed question.

explain how to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

in case you don't understand, you claimed the "chips" were primer paint (containing iron-oxide), yet the experiments of Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Basille and others showed the "paint chips" produced molten iron at 420C. please explain how iron-oxide can reduce to elemental iron (and molten to boot) at 420C.

You mean, glassy residue that can be produced in fires from a number of sources within the WTC buildings, which can combine with crushed concrete and other contents?
no I didn't see or read astaneh saying that at all, let me re-read it to - "Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue".

stundie is correct, you are a pantomime since your only response is just a form of "oh no it isn't".

Edited by Little Fish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to describe the pantomimes of debunker logic....Imagine a group of people on safari and they witness an incident..

Some describe a big cat catching a gazzelle, some are more specific and say it was a lion that caught the gazelle.

Debunker logic says it was not a lion, but a leopold and that none of them are qualified to say what type of cat it was cause they are not big cat experts.

Here is a question for the panto villans in this debunking play house, just out of curiousity, lets say you are at GZ and you removed some rubble and find some strange molten metal, how do you establish what it is?

A) Just pull a random metal out of the hat and say its metal X?

B )Don't bother trying to identify it, not even asking anyone else and just refer to it as molten metal?

C) Cool it down and examine what metal it is?

D) Just repeat the word aluminium, regardless of what metal it is cause when you look at it, you was in a different world and what other say it was who actually examined it.

Which of the following photos is aluminum, and which is steel?

x_Img_0158_z.jpg

389183196_34d4817a75_z.jpg

What color are the droplets you see at the bottom of this photo?

moltenal2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not melted steel.

NotMelted.jpg

here's more evidence of extreme temperatures for you:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. 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.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.

''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''"

http://www.nytimes.c...d-remedies.html

steel vaporizes at a much higher temperature than its melting temperature.

building fires cannot melt, let alone vaporize steel, so if not fires then what did it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so when a pointed question is put to you, you respond with your own questions of no obvious relevance. this is evasive behaviour.

Look at the photos after the aircraft struck WTC1 and WTC2. Now, explained why the impacts proved that incendiary paint could not have been applied to those buildings.No science degree is needed, just plain old-fashioned common sense is all it takes.

here is the question you evaded:

explain how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

more bizarre unrelated questions instead of answers to a pointed question.

explain how to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

You have to understand that there were welders all over the place during the construction process of the WTC buildings and clean-up crews were using torches during the clean-up operations which create residue. On another note, canbonaceous fuel as a reductant can be used, but that is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to understand that there were welders all over the place during the construction process of the WTC buildings and clean-up crews were using torches during the clean-up operations which create residue. On another note, canbonaceous fuel as a reductant can be used, but that is irrelevant.

welders...torches...clean up...hot...even more hotter....ah doughnuts.

ah yes Homer it all makes sense now.

carbonaceous fuel? so Homer, are you suggesting there was coal or oil in the calorimeter used by Harrit when he heated the "paint chips" to 420C?

last chance - explain how to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's more evidence of extreme temperatures for you:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. 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.

That in no way indicates the presence of molten steel, :no: . Where did you get that idea? :huh: Remember, Dr. Astaneh-Asl has said that fire, not explosives nor incendiaries, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse....

Charred does not mean, melted.

..., as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. ''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''"

http://www.nytimes.c...d-remedies.html

That confirms what I have been saying all along and that in regards fire weakening and buckling the steel structure. There are means to determine whether the steel buckled due to high impact temperatures or due to impact damage. First of all, you will see cracks develop due to impacts and I have repeadedly said that buckling was an indication that fire was weakening the steel structure of the WTC buildings and I have said so on many occasions.

I have also mentioned on a number of occasions that we throw hardened steel into ovens in order to form them into complexed shapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Skyeagle 409,

You have my sympathy with your quest, obviously you note i'm in with the conspiracy mob however i like you, i don't like inaccuracy, i've tried to help you, not wanting anything in return, i'm so sorry i can't do more to help, but all threads involved that you honestly try to give accurate information are always disputed, so you have a task that gives no thanks, but you go on regardless, well i thank you even if i look for conspiracy!

Hell if the World Trade Centre was in Timbuktu i may look further, but i know Americans are wasps in democracy, there were no bombs to bring the two towers down, i may go further saying that there are esoteric problems with secret societies over beliefs, but that is a different topic!!!!!!!

I would have more sympathy over trade centre conspiracy theorists if it was out of the way like TIMBUKTU, hell don't think that New Yorkers can be fooled that much, especially after 12 years!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu

Honestly conspiracy theorists there is so much to research, without getting bogged down on this disputed event regarding how the two towers came down, leave it, so much to research other than this, i'm sure that you would find that Skyeagle 409 would be less bogeyman if you moved on to more interesting research....again i say how many threads need to go down the rabbit hole on the conspiracy forum, indeed it is why i moved my own thread away, that has 12,000 hits, i joined in August 2012!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

welders...torches...clean up...hot...even more hotter....ah doughnuts.

ah yes Homer it all makes sense now.

Well, you now know the rest of the story. BTW, when were the dust samples taken? Remember, the residue which developed during construction will still be present within the rubble and will still show up in any dust samples along with residue from the torches of the clean-up crews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That in no way indicates the presence of molten steel, :no: .

what does vaporized indicate?
Where did you get that idea? :huh:
it was astaneh that stated it, he was the one that examined the steel.
Remember, Dr. Astaneh-Asl has said that fire, not explosives nor incendiaries, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.
no that's not correct, astaneh proposed a simple hypothesis for evaluation, that is all. a hypothesis is just a guess. you can't elevate a hypothesis above a guess until you have evaluated all the evidence and found it to be consistent with the hypothesis. melted and vaporized steel is not consistent with the fire hypothesis, it is consistent with the incendiary hypothesis.
Charred does not mean, melted.
read the asteneh quote again - "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.", melted means melted. vaporized means more than melted.

has there been another building fire in history that has vaporized steel?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you now know the rest of the story. BTW, when were the dust samples taken? Remember, the residue which developed during construction will still be present within the rubble and will still show up in any dust samples along with residue from the torches of the clean-up crews.

clearly, you haven't read the harrit paper, for if you had you would know that the chips did not conatain elemental or post molten iron prior to the calorimeter tests.

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.