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

Common sense dictates that if a steel beam, which was described as cherry red, is not even close to the melting point of steel. Question is: how do you lift molten steel with a grapple?

You're on a slippery slope Sky, if you're going to invoke Common Sense. Be very careful.

Common Sense shows no airplanes at Shanksville & the Pentagon.

Common Sense demands that jetfuel & gravity cannot generate temperatures sufficient to boil structural steel. Common Sense demands that a government with clean hands would have engaged in a proper investigation PRONTO, and would have preserved the forensic evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You're on a slippery slope Sky, if you're going to invoke Common Sense. Be very careful.

It is all very simple to understand. If the steel beam is cherry red, it is not in a molten state.

Common Sense shows no airplanes at Shanksville & the Pentagon.

That doesn't make any sense considering that B-757 wreckage was recovered at both crash sites, which was confirmed by coroners, investigators, recovery crews and of course, American Airlines and United Airlines. We all know how you concoct false stories. For instance, you've said there was no airplane was involved in the attack on the Pentagon and yet, you've said that American 77 passed north of the gas station, and remember, American 77 was a B-757, which is an airplane.

Common Sense demands that jetfuel & gravity cannot generate temperatures sufficient to boil structural steel.

They can generate temperatures high enough to cause total failure of structural steel. Ask any structural expert.

woodsteelfire.jpg

Common Sense demands that a government with clean hands would have engaged in a proper investigation PRONTO, and would have preserved the forensic evidence.

Forensic evidence has supported the official story.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously, you people are still running this sh!t around?

Obviously....lol
do you not have jobs?
Yes.
a social life?
Yes
girlfriends?
Well girlfriend...not girlfriends. ;)
drug habits....?
Very occasionally.
there's a world outside y'know, away from your keyboreds.
396 posts in 17 days, it would suggest that you are less aware of this world away from your keyboard than I am.
try it.

you might like it.

I more than like it, I love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Everyone else you mention are not metallurgist, which explains why structural engineers who examined the WTC steel have stated for the record they found no evidence of melted steel at ground zero nor at the salvage yards where WTC steel was taken.

And you are not a metallurgiust, you were not at GZ , so are less qualified than anyone at GZ.

And for the record, there is plenty of evidence of molten steel. Denial doesn't equals no evidence of molten steel.

The WTC fires were not capable of creating temperatures needed to melt steel.
That is simply not true because there was molten steel, therefore the temperatures were hot enough.
There was molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, which was evident by the silvery droplets.
Not evident at all, it is your poor observation and speculation .
The aluminum dripped upon the steel beams and the lifting of a steel beam clearly indicates the steel beam was not in a molten state at all.
No, they were clear the steel was molten.

Panto debunking doesn't make it less true...lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Common sense dictates that if a steel beam, which was described as cherry red, is not even close to the melting point of steel.
I forgot that common sense dictates that if multiple eyewitnesses says they saw molten steel at various times and locations at GZ, they saw molten aluminum.

Its a good job that you have the key to common sense. :blink:

Question is: how do you lift molten steel with a grapple?
Err...I dunno..You don't as such....Here is a concept for you to get your head around. You could cool it down before you pick it up, doesn't mean the steel was not molten or that it was aluminum...lol

Or you could pick up a cooler end....

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” - Greg Fuchek

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And you are not a metallurgiust, you were not at GZ , so are less qualified than anyone at GZ.

On the contrary, one of my jobs dictates knowledge in metals and among my speciaties: heat-treating and annealing of metals.

And for the record, there is plenty of evidence of molten steel. Denial doesn't equals no evidence of molten steel.

According to structural engineers who examined WTC steel, there was no evidence of motel steel at ground zero nor at the salvages yards. Add to the fact there are no temperature readings that indicated temperatures high enough to melt steel.

Undeniable evidence supporting statements of structural engineer investigators at ground zero and at the salvage years that there was no evidence of molten steel at ground zero.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I forgot that common sense dictates that if multiple eyewitnesses says they saw molten steel at various times and locations at GZ, they saw molten aluminum.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be present at ground zero to make a determination that if a steel beam is glowing red, it is not in a molten state--far from it. If a steel beam is pulled from the rubble, then the steel beam is not in a molten state.

Information

The military does not use thermite to demolish buildings. Unlike napalm, it is not used as a weapon. The military uses thermite grenades to destroy sensitive equipment so enemy forces cannot seize it.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

September 16-23, 2001: Images of Ground Zero Show Thermal Hot Spots

In response to requests from the Environmental Protection Agency, through the US Geological Survey, NASA flies a plane over the site of the WTC complex, equipped with a remote sensing instrument called AVIRIS. AVIRIS is able to remotely record the near-infrared signature of heat. Analysis of the data it collects indicates temperatures at Ground Zero of above 800 degrees Fahrenheit, with some areas above 1,300 degrees. On September 16, dozens of “hot spots” are seen, but by September 23, only four or five remain.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I never knew a steel beam need to be in a molten state to lose structural integrity. I always thought just heating steel was enough for it to become malleable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Wow, I never knew a steel beam need to be in a molten state to lose structural integrity.

I always thought just heating steel was enough for it to become malleable.

There are claims that fires within the WTC buildings were not high enough to melt steel, therefore, thermite or thermate was responsible for the collapse but temperatures only needed to be high enough to weaken steel columns to the point of failure. In other words, a temperature needed to melt steel was not required to facilitate the collapse of the WTC buildings.

The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain was weakened due to fire, which caused the steel structure to collapse and three steel framed buildings in Thailand collapsed due to fire.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are claims that fires within the WTC buildings were not high enough to melt steel, therefore, thermite or thermate was responsible for the collapse but temperatures only needed to be high enough to weaken steel columns to the point of failure, and not reach the melting point of steel.

The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain was weakened due to fire, which caused the steel structure to collapse.

OK, so if we all agree that fires inside the towers, fires caused by 2 very large aircraft that had nearly full fuel tanks, could have heated the metal.

And I assume we can also agree that the metal was under unusual strain, having just been hit by the afore mentioned large aircaft.

Why would anyone believe the towers did not fall because of the aircraft hits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would anyone believe the towers did not fall because of the aircraft hits?
a plane did not hit building 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so if we all agree that fires inside the towers, fires caused by 2 very large aircraft that had nearly full fuel tanks, could have heated the metal.

The jet fuel ignited combustible objects within the WTC buildings. Office fires can create temperatures high enough to weaken steel and in the case of the WTC buildings, fire protection was knocked off steel columns by the impacts leaving the steel columns exposed to temperatures in the range that can weaken steel columns.

And I assume we can also agree that the metal was under unusual strain, having just been hit by the afore mentioned large aircaft.

Yes! After the impacts, structural loads were redistributed and without fire protection, it would be just a matter of time before the WTC buildings would collapse. The effect on the steel structure of the WTC buildings by high temperatures was noted by the fact the WTC buildings began to buckle in the moments before they collapsed. If steel is not allowed to expand under high temperatures, it will be a matter of time before buckling occurs.

Why would anyone believe the towers did not fall because of the aircraft hits?

The impacts got the ball rolling and fires raged within the WTC buildings until they weakened the steel structures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

a plane did not hit building 7

WTC7 also suffered from massive impact damage.

WTC7 Damage

Captain Chris Boyle

Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110462.PDF

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.911myths....tc7_damage.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WTC7 also suffered from massive impact damage.
so is that why they "blew it up * "?

* as stated by police officers, firefighters and first responders at the scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC7 also suffered from massive impact damage.

WTC7 Damage

Captain Chris Boyle

Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

http://www.firehouse...e/gz/boyle.html

...Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

http://graphics8.nyt...HIC/9110462.PDF

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden

Division 1 - 33 years

...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

http://www.911myths....tc7_damage.html

Sorry but the following are not qualified structural surveyors and therefore are not qualified to make that judgement.... :P

Nobody at GZ saw any holes or bulges...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, one of my jobs dictates knowledge in metals and among my speciaties: heat-treating and annealing of metals.

You are not a metallurgist and more importantly, you were never at GZ....lol

So keep deluding yourself that you know better....lol

According to structural engineers who examined WTC steel, there was no evidence of motel steel at ground zero nor at the salvages yards.
Professor Astaneh would disagree....lol
Add to the fact there are no temperature readings that indicated temperatures high enough to melt steel.
Patently false....lol
Undeniable evidence supporting statements of structural engineer investigators at ground zero and at the salvage years that there was no evidence of molten steel at ground zero.

Sorry but you know that is untrue....Plenty of people saw molten steel...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You are not a metallurgist and more importantly, you were never at GZ....lol[/

On the contrary, I know enough about metals to know that you are incorrect.

So keep deluding yourself that you know better....lol

Professor Astaneh would disagree....lol

Patently false....lol

Considering that he left the team early on, and confirmed that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. There were no temperature reading even near the melting point of steel and structural experts from the Society of Civil Engineers and other investigators at ground zero have confirmed they found no evidence of molten steel.

In that regard, you have been proven wrong once again and you cannot provide a source that can create temperatures needed to melt steel prior of the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry but you know that is untrue....Plenty of people saw molten steel...lol

They saw molten aluminum, not steel. No source, other than equipment used by clean-up crews, was ever found at ground zero to create such high temperatures needed to melt steel.

Sorry but the following are not qualified structural surveyors and therefore are not qualified to make that judgement.... :P

Nobody at GZ saw any holes or bulges...lol

Let's take a look.

In this video, you can clearly see where the WTC building buckled just before it collapsed. That was a clear indication that fire was responsible.

Debunking 9/11 exclusive! ~ World Trade Center 7 South Side Hole

7wtc.jpg

WTC7Corner.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

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

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

9/11 cops saw collapse coming

n 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. But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings," lead investigator Shyam Sunder said at a presentation in midtown.

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

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- 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.

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

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled."

"The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry but you know that is untrue....Plenty of people saw molten steel...lol

They saw molten aluminum, not molten steel and here is another reason why they did not see molten steel.

The temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to. As the rubble is peeled away, oxygen causes the fires still smoldering to strengthen, making the task more difficult.

http://web.archive.o...very010918.html

In other words, temperatures were not high enough to create molten steel, but more than high enough to create molten aluminum for which there are photos to support the fact that molten aluminum was flowing but none for molten steel.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They saw molten aluminum, not molten steel and here is another reason why they did not see molten steel.

In other words, temperatures were not high enough to create molten steel, but more than high enough to create molten aluminum for which there are photos to support the fact that molten aluminum was flowing but none for molten steel.

It doesn't matter what you post, there were no accurate temperatures of the pile at GZ. These Firefighter said they were near 2000F and that the fires are too deep to get too, which of course strengthen when there is oxygen.

But they also said they saw molten steel, along with professors and ironworkers and many others, you have no evidence they are wrong or disproves it.

Continue on spamming the forum with the stuff we have been over time and time again, doesn't change the facts, they saw molten steel...not aluminium.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, I know enough about metals to know that you are incorrect.
You are not saying I am incorrect, you are saying that those at GZ who claimed they saw steel are incorrect. lol

And for all your knowledge of metals, you were not at GZ therefore what you present is your opinion, which you have foolishly mistaken as evidence and controversial proof they are wrong. lol

Pure delusions...

Considering that he left the team early on, and confirmed that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. There were no temperature reading even near the melting point of steel and structural experts from the Society of Civil Engineers and other investigators at ground zero have confirmed they found no evidence of molten steel.
What has he leaving the team early on got to do whether he saw molten steel at GZ?? lol

You keep invoking the temperature as some sort of argument and no one has confirmed there was no evidence of molten steel, when there is evidence of molten steel......lol

In that regard, you have been proven wrong once again and you cannot provide a source that can create temperatures needed to melt steel prior of the collapse of the WTC buildings.
I do not know how the temperatures were created and even if I have no idea how the temperatures were created, doesn't disprove that those people saw molten steel, beams and girders and neither does it prove that it was aluminium.......lol
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They saw molten aluminum, not steel. No source, other than equipment used by clean-up crews, was ever found at ground zero to create such high temperatures needed to melt steel.

Let's take a look.

In this video, you can clearly see where the WTC building buckled just before it collapsed. That was a clear indication that fire was responsible.

Debunking 9/11 exclusive! ~ World Trade Center 7 South Side Hole

7wtc.jpg

WTC7Corner.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

I guess the irony of my statement......

"Sorry but the following are not qualified structural surveyors and therefore are not qualified to make that judgement.... :P

Nobody at GZ saw any holes or bulges...lol"

Flew right above your head didn't it..... :yes:

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the irony of my statement......

"Sorry but the following are not qualified structural surveyors and therefore are not qualified to make that judgement.... :P

Nobody at GZ saw any holes or bulges...lol"

Flew right above your head didn't it..... :yes:

Nope! In addition to eyewitness accounts there are videos and photos supporting their accounts as well, whereas, there are none supporting molten steel at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It doesn't matter what you post, there were no accurate temperatures of the pile at GZ.

Prove it! Evidence please, because temperature readings and data did not depict temperatures needed to melt steel.

These Firefighter said they were near 2000F and that the fires are too deep to get too, which of course strengthen when there is oxygen.

A temperature of 2000 degrees is nowhere near the melting point of steel. It was evident that temperatures did not reach the melting point of steel because none of the steel beams that were pulled from deep within the rubble did not exhibited the characteristics that the steel beams were ever in a molten state. In fact, they described the steel beams at "red hot" or "Cherry red" in color, which would simple mean the temperature of the steel beams were far below the melting point of steel.

But they also said they saw molten steel, along with professors and ironworkers and many others, you have no evidence they are wrong or disproves it.

They are not qualified to determine whether molten metal is steel or not, and in the absence of temperature readings at the melting point of steel, the molten metal they saw was aluminum because temperatures reached the melting point of aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not saying I am incorrect, you are saying that those at GZ who claimed they saw steel are incorrect. lol

If they have said they saw molten steel, then they are incorrect,and rightly so! Were you aware that photos of steel from ground zero was actually presented as molten steel? How silly can they get??? It proved that they did not have the knowledge to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum.

Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials?

There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and perhaps 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. CTs often call this “molten steel,” although the metal in question was never tested and its composition is unknown. Infrared spectrometer readings taken shortly after the collapses showed temperatures near the surface of the piles of up to 1375 F: hot enough to melt aluminum.

It was at least that hot at points within the pile that were away from the hottest zones. William Langewiesche, the only journalist who was allowed to go with the engineers in their explorations beneath the debris, writes in “American Ground: Unbuilding the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:

"Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ultimately preserved), the fire had been so intense in places that it had consumed the tires and interiors, and had left hulks sitting on axles above hardened pools of aluminum wheels."

I don’t think the terrorists were placing thermate on car wheels. It was simply that hot. The presence of molten metals is not an indication of planned demolition work. Explosives do not produce pools of molten metal, and incendiaries like thermite burn themselves out in seconds even in the absence of oxygen and would not be available for weeks as fuel.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnsandb

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.