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

Not likely at all considering the temperatures were too low to melt steel but high enough to melt aluminum and weaken steel.

Utter codswallop and you have no evidence to back up your assertion. It doesn't matter how many times you post the surface temperatures from the thermal image and the paint analysis, it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does posting 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the conversation...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dodge #4

There was no evidence that temperatures reached 2500 degrees or higher, but there is evidence that temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum.

That's really pretty funny Sky.

Land based thermal imaging devices trained on the fires as they burned in the first hour showed remarkably low temperatures. Way too low to melt steel and perhaps not hot enough to even weaken steel.

However, satellite based thermal imaging DID show very high temperatures in spots, hot enough to melt steel. Indeed, air samples collected and published show iron particles and silicate droplets that could have been caused only by boiling metals. Swan and others claim the contaminated air came from welders and cutters on the site, but that is not really persuasive, all things considered.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you understood why you threw in the hudson river?? :blink:

The answer is: to see if have been paying attention and the fact you asked that question shows that you are not paying attention at all.

I understand the reading were taken of GZ, but what your 40 years of expertise fails to recognise is those images show the SURFACE temperature, not the temperature in the rubble.

That doesn't work for you! Other than clean-up work using torches, what would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway? Remember, 911 conspricist had claimed the cut colums was proof that thermite was used, that is, until they found the cuts were made by the clean-up crews, not thermite.

I know a rank amatuer like myself is having to school you on the difference between the surface temperature and the temperature under the rubble, but if you want to claim that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, using the surface temperature is inaccurate and doesn't prove that there was no molten steel.

What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

When you consider the witnesses reported molten steel, not aluminium.....lol

They were not trained to identify molten metal. What they saw was aluminum, since temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably Steel....lol

You have just proven that it t takes an expert to identify the flowing metal because the silvery droplets identifies the flowing material as aluminum. The silvery droplets were an very important clue and you missed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus, its like dining with stupid...lol

Those are the satellite photos showing the SURFACE TEMPERATURES, not the temperatures in the rubble, which is the evidence you need to back up your assertion and prove there was molten steel, even though there was plenty of people who witnessed molten steel. lol

May I add that other means were used to measure temperatures at ground zero.

It's funny but sad watching you pretend these people don't exist or are mistaken when evidently, you are mistaken.......lol

Those people do not have the more than 40 years metal working experience that I have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...as not a single person who witnessed the molten metal refer to it as steel.......lol

Then, what's the argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter codswallop and you have no evidence to back up your assertion. It doesn't matter how many times you post the surface temperatures from the thermal image and the paint analysis, it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does posting 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the conversation...lol

They are very important. Do you know why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Utter codswallop and you have no evidence to back up your assertion. It doesn't matter how many times you post the surface temperatures from the thermal image and the paint analysis, it doesn't change a thing.

Neither does posting 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the conversation...lol

If you are going to post temperatures high enough to melt steel at ground zero, you have to provide the source and evidence because anything less just won't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really pretty funny Sky.

Land based thermal imaging devices trained on the fires as they burned in the first hour showed remarkably low temperatures. Way too low to melt steel and perhaps not hot enough to even weaken steel.

Office fires have been known to burn at temperatures high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. Was jet fuel responsible for the collapse of the steel columns of the Windsor building in Spain?

11.3.2. At what temperature does a typical fire burn?

The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment depends on several factors including the amount and configuration of available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed 1800°F.

http://www.aisc.org/...Qs.aspx?id=1996

Not nearly high enough to melt steel, but high enough to weaken steel and melt aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is: to see if have been paying attention and the fact you asked that question shows that you are not paying attention at all.

Oh I have been paying attention but you obviously have no idea why you brought up the Hudson River cause you have failed to point out the relevance of you mentioning it......lol
That doesn't work for you!
Oh it works fine sonshine. It doesn't work for you and your proving the temperatures in the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel...lol
What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?
I do not not know what molten steel would be doing at GZ if the building had collapsed from just the fires...lol
They were not trained to identify molten metal.
You do not need to be trained to identify molten girders/beams/steel. lol

And there were plenty of experts there capable of identifying it.

What they saw was aluminum, since temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel.
You do not know what they saw cause you wasn't at GZ and more importantly, your continuous assertion that the temperatures were not not high enough has been proven as a falsehood that you have fantasised into existence. lol Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are very important. Do you know why?

The graphs bear no relevance to the subject in hand and does not prove that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel. You posted them in a desperate attempt to prove you had a point, when you didn't and now you have egg on your face and look pathetic...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to post temperatures high enough to melt steel at ground zero, you have to provide the source and evidence because anything less just won't work.

I never claimed I had the temperatures under the rubble because I knew that no measurements were taken.

You are the one who keeps persisting that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, it's your claim, you prove it. hahahahahahaha!!!

Don't try and switch it on me.

Just fess up and admit you drop a bollock! lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks for nice soft pillow and Hot cup of Coffee to ponder the ponders ! Hard to believe that this thread is still Alive ? :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I have been paying attention...

No you haven't!

Oh it works fine sonshine. It doesn't work for you and your proving the temperatures in the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel...lol

Since no one provided evidence of molten steel nor the source, nor even temperature readings that reached the melting point of steel, what more is there to say? What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

I do not not know what molten steel would be doing at GZ if the building had collapsed from just the fires...lol

Then, what is the point of your argment?

You do not need to be trained to identify molten girders/beams/steel. lol

Answer this: How would you identify molten aluminum that dripped over a steel column?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never claimed I had the temperatures under the rubble because I knew that no measurements were taken.

It has been posted that temperatures were in the range 2000 degrees and below, which once again, is not high enough to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks for nice soft pillow and Hot cup of Coffee to ponder the ponders ! Hard to believe that this thread is still Alive ? :whistle:

Yes indeed, it hard to believe. What I find peculiar is why conspiracist claim that molten steel at ground zero was evidence of thermite! Thermite does not leave behind molten steel after a short time much less over a period of days. Someone who didn't know what they were talking about concocted a conspiracy out of pure ignorance and there was those who took the bait and ran off with it.

After clean-up workers cut steel columns with torches at ground zero, photos were taken of those columns and amazingly, conspiracist saw the photos and falsely claimed the steel columns were cut by thermite. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you haven't!

Well obviously I haven't understood why you mentioned the Hudson River, but I understand why you refuse to explain it's relevance....because as per usual, it was another pointless point.
Since no one provided evidence of molten steel nor the source, nor even temperature readings that reached the melting point of steel, what more is there to say?
Evidence of molten steel? You mean multiple eyewitnesses are not evidence?? hahahahahahaha!!

The source of the molten steel is obvious from the eyewitness accounts...the rubblt.

And again, you are repeating a falsehood that you have hallucinated into existence that the the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, even though there are no recorded temperatures of the heat under the rubble.

What would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?
I'm not sure what it would be doing there if fires caused the towers to collapse?? lol
Then, what is the point of your argment?
The point is that you do not know better than those at GZ and they said the molten metal was steel.

Therefore your claims are bunk!

Answer this: How would you identify molten aluminum that dripped over a steel column?

Wait for it too cool down and identify it or if I wasn't sure, do some very simple tests that a high school child could do but a guy with 40 years experience couldn't handle...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been posted that temperatures were in the range 2000 degrees and below, which once again, is not high enough to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum.

No, what you have posted does not support your argument because you do not have temperatures from under the rubble, making your whole claim absurd to the point where you posted 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the temperatures in the rubble....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well obviously I haven't understood why you mentioned the Hudson River, but I understand why you refuse to explain it's relevance....because as per usual, it was another pointless point.

Evidence of molten steel? You mean multiple eyewitnesses are not evidence?? hahahahahahaha!!

The source of the molten steel is obvious from the eyewitness accounts...the rubblt.

And again, you are repeating a falsehood that you have hallucinated into existence that the the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel,..

The fires were not hot enough to melt steel, so where is your proof that they were?

I'm not sure what it would be doing there if fires caused the towers to collapse??

Then, what is the point of your argument?

The point is that you do not know better than those at GZ and they said the molten metal was steel

Simple common sense and the laws of physics is all that is needed to make a determination. Since it has beens shown that temperatures were far too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then what they saw was not steel, but aluminum.

Were you aware that Richard Gage and Steven Jones are not considered credible?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what you have posted does not support your argument...

On the contrary, show us readings that placed temperatures over 2000 degrees. On another note:

A Dangerous Worksite

"Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity. Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble.

Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion." OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation.

Occupational Safety & Health Administration 2003-11-01 - A Dangerous Worksite The World Trade Center

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AVIRIS_09-16-01_09-18-01_09-23-01_comparison.jpg

http://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/wtc/

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fires were not hot enough to melt steel, so where is your proof that they were?
Its your claim that "The fires were not hot enough to melt steel"...so you need to prove it!!

I do not have to prove you are wrong, a lack of evidence to support your silly claim proves you are wrong. And asking me to prove a negative highlights that in your 40 years of experience, the only metal you worked with was mercury....lol

Then, what is the point of your argument?
That there was molten steel...lol I thought you were suppose to be paying attention?? lol
Simple common sense and the laws of physics is all that is needed to make a determination.
Common sense doesn't say that you make a claim with no evidence to back it up and physics doesn't say that if people say they saw molten steel, they actually saw aluminium....lol

Proving that in 40 years, you have no grasp of common sense or physics....lol

Since it has beens shown that temperatures were far too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then what they saw was not steel, but aluminum.
It has not been shown at all, you are fantasising and highlighting again that you do not understand the concept of surface temperatures.

Do you need me to explain it to you...cause clearly you don't understand?? lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, show us readings that placed temperatures over 2000 degrees. On another note:

I do not need to show you anything, it is your claim that the temperatures in the rubble were not hot enough to melt the steel.

Showing the thermal images highlight to us again that you think surface temperatures are a true reflection of the temperatures under the pile.

And more importantly highlighting that your 40 years of experience would have been more benefical and productive staring at white noise. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its your claim that "The fires were not hot enough to melt steel"...so you need to prove it!!

Not true at all. You cannot even provide readings to backup what you claim.

I do not have to prove you are wrong, a lack of evidence to support your silly claim proves you are wrong.

On the contrary, I have provided temperature readings to backup what I have said, yet you have offered nothing that refutes my presentations. :no:

Proving that in 40 years, you have no grasp of common sense or physics....lol

On the contrary, I have used the laws of physics to prove my points.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not need to show you anything, it is your claim that the temperatures in the rubble were not hot enough to melt the steel.

Not just my claim, but those of experts who've found the temperature readings far too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum. :yes:

Unless you can provide temperature readings high enough to melt steel or the sources of any such temperature, you have no leg to stand on. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true at all. You cannot even provide readings to backup what you claim.

Show me where I claim that the temperatures were hot enough to melt steel?? :blink:

All I've said is that the witnesses said they saw molten steel and that your so called expertise counts for nothing...zilch...nowt..bugger all.

On the contrary, I have provided temperature readings to backup what I have said, yet you have offered nothing that refutes my presentations. :no:
You have offered surface temperature from thermal images from a satellite, the NIST paint analysis, a guess from a news articles and 2 graphs which have nothing to do with the temperatures of the rubble.

So do I need to explain what surface temperature is to you and how your examples do not support what you believe again....lol

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.