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

Please take a look at what the firefighter said they saw. And show me the quote where I implied firefighters are metallurgists?? :blink:

They are not metallurgist, which once again brings us back to my original comment about firefighters. With the large amount of aluminum that was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of the B-767s that struck them, and add to the fact that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but not steel, it should be of no real mystery that any molten metal they saw was nor steel. In other words, there was nothing there to produce molten steel at ground zero.

Cause I think evidently, that you are seeing things which don't exist...lol

All you have to do is to produced evidence of a catalytic reaction that can produce molten steel other than from torches from clean-up crews, short of that, you have no case.

Yes they did and no matter how many times you spam the forum saying otherwise, you are wrong because evidence from those who were at GZ like professors to firefightes to clean up workers said they saw molten steel/beams/girders and not aluminium.

Which brings us back to the argument that firefighters and others who are not experts in identifying molten metal nor are they metallurgist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Were you aware that the solidfied steel you see in the background in the following photo was created by clean-up workers with torches?

angcut.jpg

can you present your proof for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can you present your proof for that

Of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course!

that doesn't prove your statement.

the beams in your videos are different to the one on the photo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that doesn't prove your statement.

Yes, it does!

...the beams in your videos are different to the one on the photo.

It is very clear in the photo that column was not cut by anything else but by torches of clean-up crews. You can go into denial all you want but it won't change reality.

cut.jpg

cut2.jpg

cut3.jpg

WTCTorchAngleCuts2-full.jpg

Torchcutsamples-full.jpg

Cross-section samples of the characteristic marks made by oxy-acetylene flame cutting of steel

][/b]

Table 1 Thermal Hot Spot Data

Location Temperature Area Hot Spot N Latitude W Longitude (Kelvin) % FOV sq meter A 40o 42' 47.18" 74o 00' 41.43" 1000 15 0.56 B 40o 42' 47.14" 74o 00' 43.53" 830 2 0.08 C 40o 42' 42.89" 74o 00' 48.88" 900 20 0.8 D 40o 42' 41.99" 74o 00' 46.94" 790 20 0.8 E 40o 42' 40.58" 74o 00' 50.15" 710 10 0.4 F 40o 42' 38.74" 74o 00' 46.70" 700 10 0.4 G 40o 42' 39.94" 74o 00' 45.37" 1020 1 0.04 H 40o 42' 38.60" 74o 00' 43.51" 820 2 0.08

Positions are in degrees-minutes-decimal seconds, datum WGS84.

Position accuracy is estimated to be approximately +/- 6 meters (18 feet).

thermalMapGeo.gif

hotspot.C.900to1000.perc.small.gif

hotspot.C.900K.fit.small.gif

hotspot.C.700to800K.small.gif

Now, show us where at any time, temperatures were high enough to melt steel. After doing so, perhaps you can try to explain why conspiracist think that thermite left behind molten steel for days.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is very clear in the photo that column was not cut by anything else but by torches of clean-up crews. You can go into denial all you want but it won't change reality.

merely re-asserting your assertion is not proof of your assertion.

this is becoming a bad habit of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

merely re-asserting your assertion is not proof of your assertion.

this is becoming a bad habit of yours.

Answer the questions I have posed to you above. If you are unable to refute the data or answer the questions, then you have no case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer the questions I have posed to you above. If you are unable to refute the data or answer the questions, then you have no case.

i'm not making any case here with regard to that beam in the photo, so you don't need me to answer your questions.

I wanted to see your evidence that the beam in the photo with the firefighter was cut by a torch.

your black and white torch cut photo, if real, is good evidence that it was cut by a torch, the layers and shape characteristics of the cut are very similar.

can you say the same about this one:

WTC-7-Steel-from-the-911-Memorial-International-Peace-Garden-ND-Manitoba-office-fires-do-not-do-this-to-steel-but-Thermate-and-Thermite-do-produce-molten-steel.jpg

or this one, you'll see how the beam thins out to razor sharp:

WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not making any case here with regard to that beam in the photo, so you don't need me to answer your questions.

I wanted to see your evidence that the beam in the photo with the firefighter was cut by a torch.

your black and white torch cut photo, if real, is good evidence that it was cut by a torch, the layers and shape characteristics of the cut are very similar.

can you say the same about this one:

WTC-7-Steel-from-the-911-Memorial-International-Peace-Garden-ND-Manitoba-office-fires-do-not-do-this-to-steel-but-Thermate-and-Thermite-do-produce-molten-steel.jpg

or this one, you'll see how the beam thins out to razor sharp:

WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg

None of those photos depict thermite cutting. In figure C-2, the flange of the steel was not even in a molten state. Once again, you have to understand what you are posting. This is how it was done.

image5.jpg

I wish to add that fire can produce enough heat to deform steel.

woodsteelfire.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Something about all those photos is so....fake, or something.

It was an inside job and we both know it. Way more than us, actually. :st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Something about all those photos is so....fake, or something.

You are wrong again. :yes:

It was an inside job and we both know it. Way more than us, actually.

That statement of yours has no credibility and we all know how you have concocted false stories and got caught doing so on many occasions. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of those photos depict thermite cutting.
those photos do not depict damage by fire, or by your own definition damage by cutting torch.
In figure C-2, the flange of the steel was not even in a molten state.
the damage to the beam is consistent with thermite damage as proven by john cole's experiments - he gets the same result, and the analysis on that piece of steel found melting between the steel grains, but i reckon you already knew that, which is why you chose your words carefully.
Once again, you have to understand what you are posting. This is how it was done.
but where is your evidence?

you are back to just asserting without evidence.

I wish to add that fire can produce enough heat to deform steel.
but the 2 photos i gave you are not merely deformed steel as depicted in your photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

those photos do not depict damage by fire, or by your own definition damage by cutting torch.

The photos depicted nothing that even remotely suggest that thermite was used.

...the damage to the beam is consistent with thermite damage as proven by john cole's experiments

Not it isn't. The characteristic of thermite cutting is not present in any of the photos. I must add that thermite was not capable of causing the collapse of the WTC buildings. The buckling was evidence that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings, and I might add that thermite is not widely used by the demolition implosion industry nor is thermite an explosive.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse

of the World Trade Center Buildings

Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

"Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall." - NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says

http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

...- he gets the same result, and the analysis on that piece of steel found melting between the steel grains,...

You failed to understand the torches were used to cut steel columns, which had nothing to do with thermite.

...but where is your evidence?

The photos speak a thousand words. Where's your evidence the refutes what the photos are saying?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The photos depicted nothing that even remotely suggest that thermite was used.
john cole did the experiment using thermite and he gets near identical results. but you know this already.
Not it isn't. The characteristic of thermite cutting is not present in any of the photos.
you know this is false. the john cole experiment shows it. what evidence do you have to doubt cole's experiments?
You failed to understand the torches were used to cut steel columns,
no, i accept that torches were used to cut columns in the cleanup.
which had nothing to do with thermite.
but torches do not produce the jagged cut in the first picture, nor the thinning of the beam in the second photo. so that's you all washed up with no evidence again.

no doubt, we'll hear you say the same things again shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the 2 photos i gave you are not merely deformed steel as depicted in your photo.

But, your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting. On another note:

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature.

The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting.

john cole's thermite experiment reprodcued the damage seen in the photo below, so your statement "your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting" is clearly false.

WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john cole's thermite experiment reprodcued the damage seen in the photo below, so your statement "your photos did not depict evidence of thermite cutting" is clearly false.

WTC_apndxC_img_2.jpg

Once again, there is no evidence the material was in a molten state nor is it evidience that thermite was used, and in fact, far from it.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

john cole did the experiment using thermite and he gets near identical results. but you know this already.

His experiment does not prove that thermite was used in the collapse of the WTC buildings. In fact, there was no way to transport many truckloads of thermite above the 70th floors and the impacts of the two B-767s would have dislodged any huge amount of thermite from structural columns.

...you know this is false. the john cole experiment shows it. what evidence do you have to doubt cole's experiments?

His experiement is flawed in trying to prove that thermite was used in the WTC buildings.

...no, i accept that torches were used to cut columns in the cleanup.

Now, you know how solidfied molten steel was formed on the columns.

...but torches do not produce the jagged cut in the first picture, nor the thinning of the beam in the second photo. so that's you all washed up with no evidence again.

You might want to rethink again.

cut2yr6.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, there is no evidence the material was in a molten state nor is it evidience that thermite was used, and in fact, far from it.

the report says intergranular melting. the operative word being "melting". is there a difference in your mind between "molten" and "melting"? Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the report says intergranular melting. the operative word being "melting". is there a difference in your mind between "molten" and "metling"?

Since when it that evidence of thermite in light of the fact that torches were used during the clean-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the report says intergranular melting. the operative word being "melting". is there a difference in your mind between "molten" and "melting"?

Do you know what the lack of barium nitrate in the rubble of the WTC buildings mean? On another note:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are not metallurgist, which once again brings us back to my original comment about firefighters.
WOW!! Another excellent pantomime debunking of your pathetic pantomime strawman....lol...It bring us back to your fantasies again.....lol

I think you will find at no point do I claim that fire fighters are metallurgist and your debunking is absurd and delusional.

With the large amount of aluminum that was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of the B-767s that struck them, and add to the fact that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but not steel, it should be of no real mystery that any molten metal they saw was nor steel. In other words, there was nothing there to produce molten steel at ground zero.
And again here you go off to la-la land where you have no idea what the temperatures were, even though we have been over this many pages and we know that there are surface temperatures but your claim they were not hot enough is not supported by any evidence and are properly debunked by evidence from eyewitness who claim they saw molten steel/girders/beams.
All you have to do is to produced evidence of a catalytic reaction that can produce molten steel other than from torches from clean-up crews, short of that, you have no case.
I have no case....lol Except evidence from people who were at GZ...lol

All you have produced is panto debunking of thinking you know better sitting behind a keyboard dismissing evidence because they are not metallurgists.

Which brings us back to the argument that firefighters and others who are not experts in identifying molten metal nor are they metallurgist.
Oh dear! Which part of this do you not understand.....lol

You do not need to be a metallurgist to witness molten steel/beams/girders, it is easily identifiable when it cools down, it was numerous witnesses from firefighters to professors, making your point moot.

It would be like saying that multiple people witnessed the attack by a lioness and they are wrong as they aren't capable of recognising it, therefore it was leopard because you've worked with big cats for 40 years. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!! Another excellent pantomime debunking of your pathetic pantomime strawman....lol...It bring us back to your fantasies again.....lol

Actually, not. The fact that barium nitrate was not found within the rubble of the WTC buidings should have convinced the conspiracist to throw out their thermite theory.

I think you will find at no point do I claim that fire fighters are metallurgist and your debunking is absurd and delusional.

I am glad that you agree that the firefighters were not metallurgist, because it proves my point they were not in a position to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum, hence they were in error when they said that they saw molten steel when in fact, they saw no such thing.

You do not need to be a metallurgist to witness molten steel/beams/girders, it is easily identifiable when it cools down, it was numerous witnesses from firefighters to professors, making your point moot

On the contrary, they are not experts nor in a position to identify molten aluminum drippings on steel columns as such and remember, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. The molten flow from WTC2 proved beyond a doubt the molten flow was NOT steel, and the cooled silvery droplets underlines that point.

So once again, waiting for evidence that supports your case.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not need to be a metallurgist to witness molten steel/beams/girders, it is easily identifiable when it cools down, it was numerous witnesses from firefighters to professors, making your point moot.

It would be like saying that multiple people witnessed the attack by a lioness and they are wrong as they aren't capable of recognising it, therefore it was leopard because you've worked with big cats for 40 years. lol

Better take another look.

leopard_606_600x450.jpg

[media=]

[/media] 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.