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

Frenat

With all due respect sir, it is impossible for a heart surgeon to explain all the nuances and details regarding surgical procedures to a layman, or for a physicist to explain such nuances to a layman.

We we know you don't fly. I have. I don't hold a current certificate but I bet I have far more experience than you.

So too it is impossible to properly explain certain aeronautical details and nuances to a person who does not fly.

Please, immerse yourself in the heroics of Hani The Magnificent. And please enjoy that. :tu:

Yes, it is impossible to explain to you how wrong you are about the maneuver being impossible. Especially since you never look at any opposing evidence and have your fingers in your ears.

The lists, whatever you like to call them, were derived from what's called a passenger manifest. The only entity aware of what passengers were on their airplanes were the airlines. Do you want to challenge that? If so, please tell me from where the names were derived?

Did I EVER challenge that? AGAIN, those ARE NOT the lists that I was talking about. Since you've repeatedly gone off the topic of the FBI list that was put out on the 27th of September of that year after which ALL stories of hijackers being alive stopped, is that your way of agreeing? Do you have ANYTHING to say about the FACT that all stories about hijackers supposedly being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released? Anything at all? Or are you going to AGAIN confuse it with the lists released by the airlines?

1 person likes this

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!!

It's okay!

I am trying to figure out why 911 conspiracist continue to use conspiracy websites as references when those websites are notorious for supplying disinformation and misinformation, as if the Cleveland airport and United 93 wasn't a prime example of what I am talking about. In case you didn't know, that is where 911 conspiracist were duped into thinking that United 93 landed at Cleveland airport and that its passengers were seen transported away. Well, when the dust cleared, it was determined that the aircraft they confused as United 93, which was a B-757, was Delta 1989, which was a B-767. The people they confused as passengers of United 93, were actually scientist from a KC-135.

Those are just a couple of examples. Another example is where they confused landing gear doors and aerodynamic fairings as a modified pod on United 175. Question is, why would anyone install a pod over the main landing gear area since that is where the landings gears retract and extend? :huh: Another person confused the paint scheme on the forward lower fuselage of United 175. I had to show him a photo of another B-767 to make my point very clear that he confused the paint scheme as an attached pod, but why would anyone attach a pod to carry 1000 pounds of explosives anyway when they could have jammed more than 25,000 pounds of explosives in the cargo holds without modifying anything? <_<

There are other examples and the list is quite long as well.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I have heard some very bad things about the harrit paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have heard some very bad things about the harrit paper.

and yet nothing that refutes it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come one Skyeagle, I asked a question and you dodged it...and think by posting pictures, are you suggesting that who witnessed the steel were looking at photos?? lol

So here is a question for the panto villan in this debunking play house, 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?

E) Call a metallurgist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this and wonder how far he can be trusted (btw he retired outside the USA):

Disclaimer: In no way should this be construed that I condone OBL or any of his ilk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come one Skyeagle, I asked a question and you dodged it...and think by posting pictures, are you suggesting that who witnessed the steel were looking at photos?? lol

So here is a question for the panto villan in this debunking play house, 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?

For me, I can look at a piece of metal and tell what it is. For an example, there are four 6" x 6" sheets of aluminum, and they are as follows:

1. 2024-T3

2. 7075-T6

3. 5052-0

4. 2024-0

I can visually identify each sheet, but if I want further confirmation, I will simply do the bend test because each sheet will have its own characteristics. 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 are used for structural purposes while 2024-0 and 5052-0 are used for non-structural purposes because they are too soft and 7075-T6 is stiffer than 2024-T3, which is why we must throw 7075-T6 into the oven to bring it down to the 7075-0 condition in order to form it as is the case with 4130 steel. After forming 7075-0, I will throw it back into the oven to heat-treat the sheet back to 7075-T6. I can use the same method to differentiate between stainless steel sheets as well, so for me, it would not take me very long to identify the material because I know what to look for whereas those who do not know what to look for are prone to misidentify the metal.

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

The best bet for those who have no expertise in metals. Just call it what it is and leave the identification to the experts because it they see aluminum droplets spread along steel column, chances are they are going to say the steel column has partially melted. After all, look how some folks confused compacted WTC debris that underwent high temperatures as molten concrete. A closer look and you can see lettering on unburned paper buried within the compacted material, which should have told them the material was not molten concrete at all.

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

Well, if it is cooled down, it will become evident as to what the material is. Knowing what to look for visually and by feel, you do not need to be an expert to identify the metal. If you have a powered tool available, you can do a spark test. If it doesn't spark, then it is not steel because aluminum doesn't spark. If the sparks are white, then it is titanium.You can use a magnet to determine whether the material is steel or aluminum because aluminum is non-magnetic. You can do the scratch test with your car keys because aluminum is softer than steel even though aluminum is stronger depending upon the material.

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?

If you know what to look for, then you call the metal what it is, so just refer to the two photos above as examples. otherwise you will be like BR where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel in regards to the facade of the WTC buildings and he says that he was there. Now, BR is aware that the facade was aluminum and not stainless steel

E) Call a metallurgist?

Since most people are not familiar with visual metal identification, that would be the best bet otherwise they will be like BR and misidentify the aluminun facade of the WTC buildings stainless steel. Let's take a look at a reply by Leslie Robertson :

Leslie Robertson

I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge.

http://911myths.com/...es_Williams.pdf

Now, let's do a review. Below is a photo of aluminum

molten_aluminum_closeup.jpg

Note the silvery droplets in the following photo. If aluminum droplets are splattered all over steel columns, then chances are, people are going to say that the steel columns partially melted.

moltenal2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and yet nothing that refutes it.

Let's take a look.

Harrit asserts that the chips are fragments of an "energetic material". This claim is mostly based on DSC measurements, but we need to consider: is it supported by experimental evidence? The Harrit paper reports the energy content of the red chips to be in the range 1.5 - 7.5 kJ/g. This is in fact not very "energetic" at all when you consider that common organic materials such as simple hydrocarbons or oxygenated hydrocarbons contain far more energy per gram than the red chips. Thus gasoline releases about 48 kJ/g, and stearic acid, found in plant and animal fats, releases about 40 kJ/g upon combustion. Since carbon, in some as yet unknown chemical state, is also found in the red chips, it is certain that some of the energy content of the red chips is accounted for by this non-thermitic ingredient. In fact, if the chips contained a mere 10 % of graphitic carbon it would account for more than half of their energy content!

He said:

". the DSC tests demonstrate the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of pure thermite. Furthermore, the energy is released over a short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in Figure 29."

http://screwloosecha...al-from-dr.html

This statement, also repeated in the Abstract to the paper, is simply not correct and shows a complete lack of understanding of DSC by the authors of the paper. Why do I say this? Well, Figure 29 is the DSC trace of a red chip heated from 20 deg C to 700 deg C at 10 deg C/ min and shows an exothermic peak extending from approximately 420 - 470 deg C. Now, as someone who has run many DSC analyses on a wide variety of materials, I know that the height and width of a DSC peak depends on many factors such as the sample-holder, the furnace atmosphere, the sample packing density, etc, but most of all, DSC peak widths depend on the heating rate. Given that the DSC trace of Harrit et al. was acquired at 10 deg C/min and has a FWHM ~ 25 deg C, one can be certain that a different peak width would have been obtained if a different heating rate had been used. Thus DSC peak widths are not indicative of reaction rates. This is amply illustrated by many of the DSC traces and the discussion given in Chapter 5 of the well-known chemistry textbook "Thermal Analysis" by W. Wendlandt.

Remember, the collapse of the WTC1 and WTC2 initiated at the impact areas and WTC2 collapse before WTC1 even though WTC1 was struck first. Let's examine why.

525px-World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png

United 175 struck at a lower point on WTC2 than American 11, which struck WTC1 at a higher level. You will note that the weight above the impact zone of WTC2 is much greater than for WTC1, which is why WTC2 collapsed first even though it was struck last.

There is no indication nor evidence of a controlled demolition regarding either building.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this and wonder how far he can be trusted (btw he retired outside the USA):

[media=]

[/media]

Disclaimer: In no way should this be construed that I condone OBL or any of his ilk.

Ever see the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats"? Remember the General who tried to run through the wall of his office? The guy in your video (retired Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III) is the real-life General that character was based upon. Stubblebine has actually admitted on record that he did try, several times, to run through the walls of his office.

And no, he did not succeed.

Cz

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually meant from both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

double post

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found this and wonder how far he can be trusted

in my opinion, no.

he talks a lot but i've never heard him say anything (evidentially).

also, his wife is prominently involved with the codex alimentarious battle which is a corporate battle to control the food supply. there are people i trust on that issue that have come out and complained that his wife is hindering and not helping their fight for food freedom. imo, the guy to trust on that issue is scott tips (if you are interested).

http://www.amazon.com/Codex-Alimentarius-Global-Food-Imperialism/dp/0979567009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360930611&sr=8-1&keywords=codex+alimentarius

Edited by Little Fish
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me, I can look at a piece of metal and tell what it is. For an example, there are four 6" x 6" sheets of aluminum, and they are as follows:

1. 2024-T3

2. 7075-T6

3. 5052-0

4. 2024-0

I can visually identify each sheet, but if I want further confirmation, I will simply do the bend test because each sheet will have its own characteristics. 2024-T3 and 7075-T6 are used for structural purposes while 2024-0 and 5052-0 are used for non-structural purposes because they are too soft and 7075-T6 is stiffer than 2024-T3, which is why we must throw 7075-T6 into the oven to bring it down to the 7075-0 condition in order to form it as is the case with 4130 steel. After forming 7075-0, I will throw it back into the oven to heat-treat the sheet back to 7075-T6. I can use the same method to differentiate between stainless steel sheets as well, so for me, it would not take me very long to identify the material because I know what to look for whereas those who do not know what to look for are prone to misidentify the metal.

Oh dear....rather than just answer A, B, C, D, or E, you feel the need to tell us a load of irrelevant stuff.

They might not be able to identify the difference between the different steel standards, but they would not misidentify it because as you will know yourself, steel and aluminium are 2 different metals with different properties.

The best bet for those who have no expertise in metals. Just call it what it is and leave the identification to the experts because it they see aluminum droplets spread along steel column, chances are they are going to say the steel column has partially melted. After all, look how some folks confused compacted WTC debris that underwent high temperatures as molten concrete.
You might have a point if that is what they saw, but they didn't they saw pools of it, flowing like lava and not droplets spread across a steel column.

I know you are desperate for a reason these people are wrong, but so far, your arguments of what you think they might have saw it not evidence they are wrong.

A closer look and you can see lettering on unburned paper buried within the compacted material, which should have told them the material was not molten concrete at all.
A closer look should tell you that those pieces have already been examined and that it is definetly molten concrete.
Well, if it is cooled down, it will become evident as to what the material is. Knowing what to look for visually and by feel, you do not need to be an expert to identify the metal.
There you go, see, you do not need to be an expert.

And do you think those who were at GZ finding the metal were letting it cool down so they could identify it?? Or do you think they just ignored it and did A)?? lol

If you have a powered tool available, you can do a spark test. If it doesn't spark, then it is not steel because aluminum doesn't spark. If the sparks are white, then it is titanium.You can use a magnet to determine whether the material is steel or aluminum because aluminum is non-magnetic. You can do the scratch test with your car keys because aluminum is softer than steel even though aluminum is stronger depending upon the material.
I would have done a scratch test if it was not that obvious, so the point is that it is easily identifiable then agreed?? lol
If you know what to look for, then you call the metal what it is, so just refer to the two photos above as examples. otherwise you will be like BR where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel in regards to the facade of the WTC buildings and he says that he was there. Now, BR is aware that the facade was aluminum and not stainless steel.
I do not know what BR was aware of or not, I'm fully aware of the aluminium cover of the building.

And asking someone to look at a photo is not the same as asking someone to physically examine a piece of metal firsthand.

Since most people are not familiar with visual metal identification, that would be the best bet otherwise they will be like BR and misidentify the aluminun facade of the WTC buildings stainless steel. Let's take a look at a reply by Leslie Robertson :

Its is not the best bet to misidentify the metal at all.

This is the hilarious thing, is that lots of people then supposedly misidentified it, even though everyone who specifies the metal says it was steel.

And thats probably due to the fact they saw the melting of girders in the piles.

Now, let's do a review. Below is a photo of aluminum

molten_aluminum_closeup.jpg

Note the silvery droplets in the following photo. If aluminum droplets are splattered all over steel columns, then chances are, people are going to say that the steel columns partially melted.

moltenal2.jpg

[media=]

[/media]!

Sorry but they look nothing a like.

Aluminium doesn't iradiate that colour in the daylight and loses its heat very quickly, this metal is staying very hot long after it as left the heat source and it is falling many floors before cooling down. Which looks more like steel than aluminium.

If you think those people at GZ are wrong, then you need evidence they are wrong, not your suspicions that they misidentified it, especialy when professors and people like Leslie Robertson who can tell the differences between steel and aluminium.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.

Conclusion, it was molten aluminium.:blink:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever see the movie "The Men Who Stare at Goats"? Remember the General who tried to run through the wall of his office? The guy in your video (retired Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III) is the real-life General that character was based upon. Stubblebine has actually admitted on record that he did try, several times, to run through the walls of his office.

And no, he did not succeed.

Cz

I did see that movie. No, I didn't know that...not surprised he didn't succeed, lol. Thanks for the heads-up now I'll have to do some research (at least as much as I can do on the internet where reliability is always an issue).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

!

  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.

Conclusion, it was molten aluminium. :blink:

If you look very closely within that mess, you will find unburned paper, which clearly indicates that is no molten concrete.It is a compressed mess of four stories of debris and contents within the building. There is a video available where you can still read words from unburned paper embedded within the object, which clearly indicates the material was never molten concrete.

ae911truth.15g_small.jpg

It's actually four floors of the World Trade Center squashed like a pancake and yet people were led to believe the meteorite was molten concrete. In another photo, an unmelted gun barrel was displayed along side of a similar object, which was yet another indication the material never reached the melting point of steel.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a look.

none of which addresses the question i put to you - explain how the molten iron was produced at 420 Celcius from thermitic chips that contain only iron oxide, if not an exothermic thermitic reaction then what?

and remember experimental results trump rhetoric and bloviation.

the point you cut and pasted from rhetorician Frank Greening does not address the question and was responded to in your own link by pointing out what Frank Greening is desperately ignoring:

"From: Steven Jones

To: Metamars

Cc: Frank Greening ; James Gourley ; Gregg Roberts ; Frank Legge ; Jeffrey Farrer ; Danny Farnsworth ; Brlbu ; Niels Harrit

Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:12 AM

Subject: Re: Are the red/gray chips stable to hammer blows, or will they ignite?

The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.

Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores:

The formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition,

Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.

The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.

Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law."

in any case the distraction you raised was immediately refuted in your own link:

"how can you justify your remark that the narrowness of the DSC exotherm indicates nothing about the rate of reaction? Does it not tell us that the red chips reacted faster than the Tillotson sample, which showed a wider exotherm when run at the same rate? I believe one may produce a valid hypothesis to test that Tillotson's material was not as advanced as the red chips, being an earlier experimental material."

brushing aside your distractions, here is the question again - how can you explain the production of molten iron from only iron-oxide at 420C other than with a thermite reaction? like everyone else - you can't.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We we know you don't fly. I have. I don't hold a current certificate but I bet I have far more experience than you.

Yes, it is impossible to explain to you how wrong you are about the maneuver being impossible. Especially since you never look at any opposing evidence and have your fingers in your ears.

Did I EVER challenge that? AGAIN, those ARE NOT the lists that I was talking about. Since you've repeatedly gone off the topic of the FBI list that was put out on the 27th of September of that year after which ALL stories of hijackers being alive stopped, is that your way of agreeing? Do you have ANYTHING to say about the FACT that all stories about hijackers supposedly being alive stopped after the official FBI list was released? Anything at all? Or are you going to AGAIN confuse it with the lists released by the airlines?

Yes, Frenat, you know I don't fly, and you know that there was a Boeing at Shanksville and the Pentagon. I do understand sir. The conscious exclusion of painful desires or thoughts from awareness is a common trait amongst humans. It is more important to be happy than it is to acknowledge the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at what those at GZ actually had to say about the molten metal....

!

  • Firefighters say they saw molten steel, the guy in the background is nodding his head in agreement and there are other firefighters who are not in the shot, one is heard saying "yeah" off camera and not a single person disgrees with his assertions. They obviously have all witnessed it.
  • Another guy says molten beams/steel was being dug up.
  • 2 people talking about the fusion of molten steel and concrete on the piece that is known as the meteorite
  • Guys looking at the horseshoe I beam says it takes thousands of degrees to bend this piece without any cracks.
  • Another person says he saw big pieces of iron being pulled out of the rubble which will litterally being on fire.
  • Move big pieces of steel to reveal these fires, these fires of hell.
  • A person speaking says it's been like this since day one and 6 weeks when they look insides its a bright red/orange inside.
  • Another talks about the diggers opening up the pockets and that at point, he think they were about 2800 degrees.
  • A persons talks about these 2 seperate steel beams metled together to form a cross.

Conclusion, it was molten aluminium. :blink:

If you look very closely within that mess, you will find unburned paper, which clearly indicates that is no molten concrete.It is a compressed mess of four stories of debris and contents within the building. There is a video available where you can still read words from unburned paper embedded within the object, which clearly indicates the material was never molten concrete.

ae911truth.15g_small.jpg

It's actually four floors of the World Trade Center squashed like a pancake and yet people were led to believe the meteorite was molten concrete. In another photo, an unmelted gun barrel was displayed along side of a similar object, which was yet another indication the material never reached the melting point of steel.

In the video, I heard so much misinformation that it is unbelievable that anyone would take what is presented seriously. Let's take a few examples.

1. Timeline; 0:11. It depicts a grapple lifting a hot piece of metal and it is sought to imply the material is molten steel. Clearly, the material is not in a molten state so it is amazing that anyone would even suggest that is molten steel. There would have been no way to lift molten steel with such a machine, so that is misinformation #1.

2. Time line; 0:37, Steven Jones name is mentioned and that was a mistake because Steven Jones have been discredited by experts, and even by his own colleagues at BTU. The video also mentions that Steven Jones found thermite, but that claim has been discredited along time ago because the compounds he found was also contain in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Apparently, Steven Jones of unaware of that fact before he made his false claim. That ismisinformation #2.

3. Time line; 1:23-1:39, they mention molten steel but they are not experts to identify the metal as molten steel. In addtion, that claim is made regarding the "meteorite" which is not molten steel at all, but compressed contents of four floors from the WTC building that was not subject to melting point of steel which was evident by the fact there was still unburned paper within the material. So once again, misinformation that have duped people unknowingly, so that is misinformation #3

4. Time line; 1:40 depicts a curved piece of I-beam, which was subject to temperatures less that the melting point of steel under high stress.

5. Time line 2:00. The worker clearly has no idea what he is talking about. He claims that it takes thousands of degrees to form that I-beam, but that is correct only during the manufacturing process, not in the field. If that was the case, (in the field) the I-beam would have been a glob of former molten steel and would not have retained the shape as you see in the video,and that is misinformation #4.

6. Time line; 2:40- 4:00 Persistent fires. Persistent fires within a rubble days after a fire is nothing new. Check it out.

Queensbury warehouse fire still smoldering two days after start

http://www.timesunion.com/business/article/Queensbury-warehouse-fire-still-smoldering-two-4250472.php

Officials say Caldwell plant fire smoldered for days

http://www.idahopress.com/news/article_5f2d4aaf-1a16-5e9a-983c-b946fc5f1236.html?mode=image&photo=1

Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days

Read more: http://www.yumasun.com/articles/fire-83399-mcmurdie-buildings.html#ixzz2KzczdHsh

Conspiracist have been unknowing duped because they were unaware of the rest of the story. Persistent fires as proof of a conspiracy? We can safely list that claim as misinformaton #5

7. Time line; 4:00 - 4:30. The cross. The guy mentions that molten metal is seen draping over one arm of the cross. Here is that photo.

article-2018270-0D21495800000578-635_964x1389-20130112-171350.jpg

Clearly, that piece of metal is not, nor ever was, in a molten state, which placed that claim as misinformation #6.

He goes on to say that the two pieces of the "cross" were not part of the same object, but were fused together under high temperatures, but let's take another look.

P000021-20130119-134536.jpg

How many crosses do you see in the following photo?

wtc_crosses-20130118-161933.jpg

As you can see, those photos show that there is a problem with his statement, so we can now list his statement as misinformation #7.

It all boils down to the fact that many people are unaware that they are being duped by those who were duped by others and the snowball keeps building, but to those of us who know better, we can see that problem loud and clear and that video you posted is just another example of what I am talking about. You only have to look back at that hoaxed video of WTC7 to understand what I am talking about.

Word to the wise; do not allow yourself to be duped by those whose intention is to lead you astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Frenat, you know I don't fly, and you know that there was a Boeing at Shanksville and the Pentagon.

I am very sure that we all known that already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my opinion, no.

he talks a lot but i've never heard him say anything (evidentially).

also, his wife is prominently involved with the codex alimentarious battle which is a corporate battle to control the food supply. there are people i trust on that issue that have come out and complained that his wife is hindering and not helping their fight for food freedom. imo, the guy to trust on that issue is scott tips (if you are interested).

http://www.amazon.co...ex alimentarius

I had heard of the codex alimentarius, it makes me think of Monsanto, aka "the food Mafia".

eta: Thanks for that link.

Edited by Gummug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear....rather than just answer A, B, C, D, or E, you feel the need to tell us a load of irrelevant stuff.

That is the way it works because you do not possess the knowledge needed to understand otherwise. Most people at that site are not experts nor were they capable of identifying molten metal, but it seems that 911 conspiracist were unaware of that fact.

They might not be able to identify the difference between the different steel standards, but they would not misidentify it because as you will know yourself, steel and aluminium are 2 different metals with different properties.

I can also identify dissimilar sheets of steel and aluminum because each have their own unique characteristics. An example: stainless steel 1/2 hard, stainless steel 1/4 hard, stainless steel, annealed, etc.

You might have a point if that is what they saw, but they didn't they saw pools of it, flowing like lava and not droplets spread across a steel column.

With thousands of pounds of molten aluminum dripping all over the place, it is no real mystery that clean-up workers would eventually encounter the stuff at ground level. We know that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but too low to melt steel. The mayor said it himself in your video where he said that temperatures were around 2000 degrees, which of course, is a temperature not capable of melting steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this link trustworthy?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this link trustworthy?

[media=]http://www

.youtube.com/watch?v=vKEa8xZUgy0[/media]

I wouldn't trust that video because It is full of disinformation and misinformation and is as worthless as an $8.00 bill. There have been claims that this photo was proof that thermite brought down the WTC buildings.

cut3.jpg

Apparently, 911 conspiracist were unaware that clean-up crews cut the steel column.

cut.jpg

Just another case where 911 conspiracist had turned something as mundane as a clean-up operation into an unfounded conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Skyeagle, how about this one though? I mean, I had heard before about trucks arriving after everyone left and leaving about 5 am before anyone got there. Workers, but working on what?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiEVzlIfSXk

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.