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

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.

No, it clearly flew above your head...and do you know why there were no videos of photos at GZ?? lol

See if you can read the sign....

WTC_KS%2520-%252020.jpg

Edited by Stundie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prove it! Evidence please, because temperature readings and data did not depict temperatures needed to melt steel.
I do not need to prove a negative.....lol

You are the one who is claiming that the temperatures were not hot enough, therefore your burden of proof, I do not need to prove you are wrong when you can't even prove you are right...lol

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.
And some of them describe molten steel.
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 aluminium.
You do not need to be qualified to determine whether there was molten steel or not....lol

And there were plenty of people more than qualified anyway, including iron workers......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have said they saw molten steel, then they are incorrect,and rightly so!

No, you are wrong, you have no evidence they are wrong and they are people who are more qualified than you at GZ who said they saw molten steel.
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.

You have proved that you are an internet warrior who thinks he knows better than people who are more quailed than himself and who were actually at GZ and not sitting behind a keyboard....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it clearly flew above your head...and do you know why there were no videos of photos at GZ?? lol

See if you can read the sign....

WTC_KS%2520-%252020.jpg

Still no molten steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not need to prove a negative.....lol

It is all very simple. You are in error! After all, I have supplied temperature data proving my point, which proved you in error.

No, you are wrong, you have no evidence they are wrong and they are people who are more qualified than you at GZ who said they saw molten steel.

On the contrary, given the fact that investigators found no evidence of molten steel and the temperatures readings did not depict temperatures reaching the melting point of steel, you are in serious error.

Popular Tecnology. net

http://www.popularte...y-theories.html

And remember this:

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

In other words, the real experts who were at ground zero as they examined WTC steel and others who were at the salvage yards examining WTC steel, have stated for the record they found on evidence of molten steel, which jives with temperature readings taken at ground zero and that brings us back as to why investigators found ZERO evidence for molten steel.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an Official Conspiracy Theory? What does that make all the 'other' Conspiracy Theories? UnOfficial? :clap:

Exactly.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Purely and simply a false statement Sky. There are numerous statements from different individuals, and photos to go with many of those statements, describing molten steel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no molten steel.

Or molten aluminium for that fact....lol Edited by Stundie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is all very simple. You are in error! After all, I have supplied temperature data proving my point, which proved you in error.
No, you are the one in error and think you know better than those at GZ.

The data you provide doesn't prove your point, all it proves is that the temperatures are the surface temperatures and guesses. Seeing as the temperature is truly an unknown as the fires will be at different temperatures at different times and days doesn't disprove what the people witnessed.

You do not need to be a metallurgist and your expertise is an interesting opinion, but not based on any verifiable facts....lol

On the contrary, given the fact that investigators found no evidence of molten steel and the temperatures readings did not depict temperatures reaching the melting point of steel, you are in serious error.

Popular Tecnology. net

http://www.popularte...y-theories.html

And remember this:

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

In other words, the real experts who were at ground zero as they examined WTC steel and others who were at the salvage yards examining WTC steel, have stated for the record they found on evidence of molten steel, which jives with temperature readings taken at ground zero and that brings us back as to why investigators found ZERO evidence for molten steel.

In other words, these people did not see the molten steel because the steel they examined shows no signs of being molten, this doesn't mean that there were not other steel molten like the multiple eyewitness and experts. They have no reason to lie and have no reason to be mistaken. Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or molten aluminium for that fact....lol

Considering that I have seen molten aluminum on many occasions, it shouldn't be of no surprise.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you are the one in error and think you know better than those at GZ.

Okay, let's hear what they have said.

"NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY) – who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards – found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse."

Considering that you have failed to refute the official temperature readings provided which did not show temperatures in the range needed to melt steel, its Case closed!! You can now close your book of denial. To underline that fact even further, provide us with the temperature readings. Even the firefighters you threw in as support have said the temperatures were near 2000 degrees, which is not even close to the melting point of steel.

GZ_German_dust-digging-bent-beam-1.jpg

Doesn't look like molten steel to me! Nor even here!

400loads.jpgbent-girder_1477855i.jpg

ce6879eec4a1.jpg

edf353238801.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Purely and simply a false statement Sky.

On the contrary, I am right on the money and to prove my case, please provide us with temperature readings in the range needed to melt steel.

There are numerous statements from different individuals,...

Certain statements just don't cut it when the evidence says otherwise. That fact can be reviewed where you have had multiple witnesses to an automobile accident. Some witnesses have said this is the way it happened while other witnesses refute their testimony and that is where the evidence will speak louder than words.

...and photos to go with many of those statements, describing molten steel.

The only photos and videos available depict molten aluminum, which is seen solidifying into silvery droplets. Were you aware that there were reports of molten aluminum pools in the basement? Do you know where the molten aluminum came from? Do you know how it was determined the pools were aluminum and not steel?

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the

top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears

intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation

of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of

the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten

aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.”

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's hear what they have said.

We know what the NIST said, but did they inspect every single piece of steel?... :no:

Then what you forget is the temperatures you keep banging on about are not accurate, they are recorded surface temperatures and guesses.

Then what you ignore is the that multiple independent eyewitnesses, some whom are more than qualified, identified molten steel.

Spamming the forum doesn't change facts I'm afraid or change molten steel into aluminium.

Making your case weaker than the grip you have on reality......lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering that I have seen molten aluminum on many occasions, it shouldn't be of no surprise.

Who cares if you have seen molten aluminium? lol Did you see it at GZ?? :no: How does that disprove what the people witnessed at GZ?? lol

Skyeagle as seen lots of molten aluminium, therefore it disproves that all those people who are more qualified than you and were at GZ, didn't see steel!! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We know what the NIST said, but did they inspect every single piece of steel?... :no:

Then what you forget is the temperatures you keep banging on about are not accurate, they are recorded surface temperatures and guesses.

Then what you ignore is the that multiple independent eyewitnesses, some whom are more than qualified, identified molten steel.

Making your case weaker than the grip you have on reality......lol

Let's take a look at what conspiracist have claimed, was the discovery by firefighters of molten steel.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's take a look at what conspiracist have claimed, was the discovery by firefighters of molten steel.

[media=]

[/media]

No, lets not look at what conspiracists claim, let us look at what those who were at GZ claimed...

Leslie Robert, a structural engineer who worked on the WTC and was at GZ claims this...

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”

And lets look at what you claim...

Leslie Roberts is too stupid and doesn't know his **** from his elbow to recognise molten steel and he is wrong because you claim you know better..... :w00t:

Let us look at what those who were at GZ claimed...

Captain Philip Ruvolo with all the firefighters around him claimed this.

“You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel– molten steel running down the channel ways, like you were in a foundry– like lava.”

And lets look at what you claim...

Captain Philip Ruvolo and all of those firefighters don't know squat who couldn't spot a camel in the desert and are utterly incapable of recognising molten steel and are wrong because you know better..... :w00t:...lol

That's you argument...that's your evidence they are wrong, posting surface temperatures proves and estimates doesn't disprove it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leslie Robert, a structural engineer who worked on the WTC and was at GZ claims this...

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.”

Molten metal doesn't not automatically translate into molten steel because molten aluminum and molten lead can also be called molten metal.

][/b]

And lets look at what you claim...

Leslie Roberts is too stupid and doesn't know his **** from his elbow to recognise molten steel and he is wrong because you claim you know better..... :w00t:

Let's take another look at Leslie Roberts because he is on the record for saying that he did not have the required knowledge to identify molten metal.

Leslie Roberts: The Rest of the Story

What is the truth, then? We sent an email to LERA, Robertson's engineering firm, in an effort to find out:

I have a question regarding some claims in the October SEAU Newsletter (http://www.seau.org/...ews-2001-10.pdf)

In this article it is stated that

"As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."

This statement has been attributed to Leslie Robertson and used to support some of the more unusual claims regarding the 9/11 attacks. I was wondering, is this statement correct, or could you clarify it at all?

And a short time later, an email arrived from Leslie E Robertson himself:

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

What have I said about certain people not possessing the needed knownledge to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum?

To continue:

Previously we concluded that the phrase was Williams alone, but it seems that’s not entirely true. James Williams sent us his notes from the Robertson address, and it does make reference to molten metal. Only that’s it: he wrote “molten metal - still running”, not “molten steel”. (We’ve made the notes available here, with permission).

Robertson says he didn’t use the “molten steel” quote, then, and Williams notes don’t disprove this. The key is to find out where the “molten metal” line came from. Was it something Robertson said, and has since forgotten? Or a note in response to a photo? We’re trying to obtain the original Powerpoint slides of the address, which should offer a clue, but in the meantime this story should be regarded with caution: it’s clearly far from definitive evidence of molten steel at Ground Zero

http://911myths.com/..._robertson.html

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

Apparently, you were unaware of the rest of the story regarding Leslie Robertson. If you are going to post something, at least understand what you are posting and ascertain the rest of the story.

Captain Philip Ruvolo with all the firefighters around him claimed this.

“You’d get down below and you’d see molten steel– molten steel running down the channel ways, like you were in a foundry– like lava.”

If he saw molten metal, then the molten metal was NOT buried deep within the WTC rubble after all, but within plain sight. Since official temperature readings taken of the WTC rubble were far too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then what he saw was molten aluminum.

When they reached the lower levels, it was reported that automobiles were sitting on pools of harden molten aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molten metal doesn't not automatically translate into molten steel because molten aluminum and molten lead can also be called molten metal.

Molten metal doesn't not automatically translate into molten aluminium, because molten steel can also be called molten metal.

Let's take another look at Leslie Roberts because he is on the record for saying that he did not have the required knowledge to identify molten metal.

Well if he doesn't recall saying it, there is a video of him saying that he saw it.

What have I said about certain people not possessing the needed knownledge to differentiate between molten steel and molten aluminum?
What you have said is utter codswallop.

There are plenty of people capable of identifying it...lol

To continue:

Apparently, you were unaware of the rest of the story regarding Leslie Robertson. If you are going to post something, at least understand what you are posting and ascertain the rest of the story.

I was unaware that he doesn't remember saying it, but it is irrelevant because it's on video...lol
If he saw molten metal, then the molten metal was NOT buried deep within the WTC rubble after all, but within plain sight. Since official temperature readings taken of the WTC rubble were far too low to melt steel, but high enough to melt aluminum, then what he saw was molten aluminum.
Utter nonsense, the firefighters saw it and would have been in a position to know what it was seeing as they would be the ones cooling down the molten steel so that it could be removed.

Making your point just look like a internet debunking warrior who thinks he knows better than those who were at GZ, sat behind his keyboard and screen...lol

When they reached the lower levels, it was reported that automobiles were sitting on pools of harden molten aluminum.
I'm sure there was molten aluminium, seeing as there was molten steel and aluminium has a much lower melting temperature.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aluminium is easy to melt, there was a fire on a terrace in my building, 3 floors above mine, aluminium railing melted and i had aluminium drops fall on my terrace, and burn holes in my carpet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Molten metal doesn't not automatically translate into molten aluminium, because molten steel can also be called molten metal.

It can if the temperature is between 1300 degrees and 1800 degrees, which was recorded at ground zero and far to low to melt steed but above the temperature needed to melt aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aluminium is easy to melt, there was a fire on a terrace in my building, 3 floors above mine, aluminium railing melted and i had aluminium drops fall on my terrace, and burn holes in my carpet

Yes indeed, aluminum is easy to melt and automobiles were observed sitting on pools of harden aluminum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It can if the temperature is between 1300 degrees and 1800 degrees, which was recorded at ground zero and far to low to melt steed but above the temperature needed to melt aluminum.

But the temperatures were not between 1300 - 1800 degrees, the only temperatures we have are surface temperatures and estimates.

In other words we have no idea what the temperature was under the rubble which was clearly hot enough to melt steel, cause so many people witnessed it seeing molten steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the temperatures were not between 1300 - 1800 degrees, the only temperatures we have are surface temperatures and estimates.

Firefighters at ground zero have said that the temperature deep within the rubble was near 2000 degrees, which is nowhere near the melting point of steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firefighters at ground zero have said that the temperature deep within the rubble was near 2000 degrees, which is nowhere near the melting point of steel.

Yes they did but they were estimates cause they couldnt get close to the rubble because of the molten steel.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they did but they were estimates cause they couldnt get close to the rubble because of the molten steel.

.

They got quite close and if you noticed in one of my post, they said that when they tried to open up the rubble the fire would flare up and yet, the temperature did not reach the melting point of steel.

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.