skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1076 Share Posted March 14, 2013 You should be embarrassed but some people have no shame do they...lol[/color][/size][/font][/background] How amusing that you would say such a thing when you have failed to provide a single shred of evidence of molten steel at ground zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1077 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) No I read it,...l Then, what does this have to say? Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories The Internet allows ignorance to blossom as it has for the 9/11 Truth movement. To the naive their arguments can seem compelling but when you actually analyze their claims with hard science and facts, they completely fall apart. http://www.popularte...y-theories.html We you even aware that you were duped by Steven Jones? Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1078 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I have posted temperature data which backs me up. You have posted nothing but surface temperatures and estimates. I have posted estimates which prove you wrong.. One of the workers says the fires were at one point “2,800 degrees". _ America Rebuilds. Just goes to show that you haven't been paying any attention at all.I have paid full attention to what you have been saying, but to be honest, I might as well have not bothered for all the sense it makes...lolStill no evidence from yout??? Now, why am I not surprised. No evidence from me, just multiple independent eyewitnesses at GZ and they are not evidence...lolAnother classic Skyeaslism, eyewitnesses are not evidence according to your logic...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1079 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Then, what does this have to say?The same crapola you have been spouting on which doesn't disproe what those at GZ said...lolWe you even aware that you were duped by Steven Jones?Were you aware that you have been duped by a tour guide called Mark Roberts and yourself??...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1080 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) You have posted nothing but surface temperatures and estimates. 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 Nothing there that indicates temperatures high enough to melt steel. Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1081 Share Posted March 14, 2013 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 Nothing there that indicates temperatures high enough to melt steel. Obviously even after all this time, you still don't understand the difference between surface temperatures and those under the rubble...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1082 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Were you aware that you have been duped by a tour guide called Mark Roberts and yourself??...lol Since I have been working with metals for decades, I know what I am talking about, but let's hear it from the lips of Mr. Robertson you used as a reference.. 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/html/leslie_robertson.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1083 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Obviously even after all this time, you still don't understand the difference between surface temperatures and those under the rubble.. Surface temperature was found to be less than 2000 degrees. After all, you posted the proof yourself. Crews reported the steel beams they recovered from beneath the WTC rubble were "cherry hot?" So, let's take a look at the chart once again and tell us at what temperature is a steel beam if "cherry hot?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1084 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Since I have been working with metals for decades, I know what I am talking about, but let's hear it from the lips of Mr. Robertson you used as a reference.. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and the only metals I think you have worked with his mercury...lolAnd as for Mr Robertson, it's a shame that he has contradicted himself cause we have a video where he made such a statement ...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1085 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) You clearly have no idea what you are talking about ... Of course I do! And, the quote came directly from the mouth of Leslie Robertson. And as for Mr Robertson, it's a shame that he has contradicted himself cause we have a video where he made such a statement Remember, YOU were the person who first used him as a reference in the debate and after the rest of the story has been made known to you, Mr. Robertson is no longer credible in your eyes. Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1086 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Surface temperature was found to be less than 2000 degrees. Yes, the SURFACE TEMPERATURES!! lolDo you understand the difference between the surface temperatures and that under the rubble with your expertise?? lol After all, you posted the proof yourself. Crews reported the steel beams they recovered from beneath the WTC rubble were "cherry hot?" So, let's take a look at the chart once again and tell us at what temperature is a steel beam if "cherry hot?" Jesus here comes another Skyeaglism...lolThat was after 6 weeks ...lol “Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated that, six weeks after 9/11, ‘There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red’ and ‘the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” Edited March 14, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1087 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Of course I do! And, the quote came directly from the mouth of Leslie Robertson. No you don't know what you are talking about....lolI know where the quote came from, where do you think my quotes come from, do you think I made it up, or do you think that is what he said in the video?? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1088 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yes, the SURFACE TEMPERATURES!! l The "cherry red" steel beams that were reportedly pulled from beneath the WTC rubble proved the temperatures beneath the WTC rubble were below the melting point of steel. Common sense logic, you understand. I know where the quote came from, where do you think my quotes come from, do you think I made it up, or do you think that is what he said in the video?? Still no evidence that refutes my presentation??? Why am I not surprised! No you don't know what you are talking about... Where's your evidence that refutes my data and documentations??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1089 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) “Firemen and hazardous materials experts stated that, six weeks after 9/11, ‘ I have posted articles from fires where they continued to smolder for days after the surface fire was put out, so smoldering fires that last for days after a fire are nothing knew, which once again, shows that you have not been paying attention. Burned buildings in Hinton could smolder for days HINTON, W.Va. -- Hinton Fire Chief Ray Pivont says five apartment buildings destroyed by a fire could smolder for days. http://www.dailymail...fs/201302280030 ‘There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red’ and ‘the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” Since steel beams were pulled from beneath the rubble, indicates the steel beams were not in a molten state and secondly, "cherry red" color of the steel beams indicates temperature of the steel beams were far below the temperature needed to melt steel. Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1090 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The "cherry red" steel beams that were reportedly pulled from beneath the WTC rubble proved the temperatures beneath the WTC rubble were below the melting point of steel. Six weeks later after being doused in water 24/7 by firefighter with millions of gallons of water...lolCommon sense logic, you understand. You common sense is only common to you...lol Still no evidence that refutes my presentation??? Why am I not surprised!Where's your evidence that refutes my data and documentations??? I do not need evidence to refute something you can't even establish....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1091 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Six weeks later after being doused in water 24/7 by firefighter with millions of gallons of water.. Smoldering fires that last for days or even years, are nothing new. Packing shed fire will continue to smolder for next few days The fire that broke out earlier this week at the Bruce Church produce packing sheds will continue to smolder for the next couple of days and produce some light smoke, but there are no longer any flames coming from the site. Read more: http://www.yumasun.com/articles/fire-83399-mcmurdie-buildings.html#ixzz2NXkjtmIV Now, where's your evidence? Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1092 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Smoldering fires that last for days or even years, are nothing new. Now, where's your evidence? Creating molten steel is new and could you show me a building collapse which smoldered for years. p.s. There is no evidence because you haven't supplied any to support your claim. Estimate and surface temperatures do not reflect the true temperatures within the rubble and it#s truly not my fault that you cannot get your head around this simple concept, even though you claim to be some sort of metals wiz....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1093 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Creating molten steel is new and could you show me a building collapse which smoldered for years. Show us any source capable of producing molten steel at ground zero. ...p.s. There is no evidence because you haven't supplied any to support your claim. The laws of physics, recorded temperature data and documentation at ground zero, and common sense are all that is needed to prove my claiim. Estimate and surface temperatures do not reflect the true temperatures within the rubble ... The "cherry red" steel beams pulled from beheath the rubble of the WTC buildings are indicative of the temperatures beneath the rubble, which was nowhere near the melting point of steel. Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1094 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I have posted articles from fires where they continued to smolder for days after the surface fire was put out, so smoldering fires that last for days after a fire are nothing knew, which once again, shows that you have not been paying attention. Since steel beams were pulled from beneath the rubble, indicates the steel beams were not in a molten state and secondly, "cherry red" color of the steel beams indicates temperature of the steel beams were far below the temperature needed to melt steel. Yes, because the fires at GZ which were like pits of molten lava, like a volcano, like a foundry were actually smouldering....lolSo not only do you not understand the difference between the surface temps and those under the rubble, you do not understand the difference between smoldering and fire like a foundry...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1095 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Show us any source capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.I do not know the source, just like FEMA didn't know the source of the vaprosied steel. Just because we do not know the source, doesn't mean that it never existed does it?? lol The laws of physics, recorded temperature data and documentation at ground zero, and common sense is all that is needed to prove my claiim.The laws of physics say that if numerous witnesses said they saw molten steel, they saw aluminium...lolWhat law of physics is this? Skyeagles first imaginary laws of physics....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1096 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Yes, because the fires at GZ which were like pits of molten lava, like a volcano, like a foundry were actually smouldering.... Recorded temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. To further my point, we have photos and video of molten aluminum, but none of molten steel at ground zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1097 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) I do not know the source, just like FEMA didn't know the source of the vaprosied steel. If it was vaporized, it wouldn't have been recoverable. The laws of physics say that if numerous witnesses said they saw molten steel, they saw aluminium... Considering firefighters are not trained nor knowledgeable to identify molten metal, what more can I say except those who were knowledgeable, which included structural engineers and investigators, have confirmed that no evidence of molten steel was found at ground zero. Now, where's your evidence? Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1098 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Recorded temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. To further my point, we have photos and video of molten aluminum, but none of molten steel at ground zero. Recorded SURFACE temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. <---Fixed that for you...lolTo further my point, we have photos and video of molten aluminum, but none of molten steel at ground zero.There is no photos of molten aluminium in the rubble at GZ cause photos were not allowed.Posting the photo of the metal showering out of WTC2, even if we assume it is aluminium (which it isn't!), doesn't disprove the eyewitness accounts. Although you have fooled yourself that it does. lol But you and logic seem to have an awkward relationship...lol Edited March 14, 2013 by Stundie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stundie Posted March 14, 2013 #1099 Share Posted March 14, 2013 If it was vaporized, it wouldn't have been recoverable.Jesus, it's statements like this that prove to me you are pretending to be smarter than you actually are. Are you denying there was vaporised steel now?? lol Even though it is documented by FEMA who are experts after all...lol Are you denying because according to your loigc, if it's vaporised, it should have completely disappeared or have you ever though that parts of the beam were vaporised?? lol Of course not, its a black and white world...lol Considering firefighters are not trained nor knowledgeable to identify molten metal, what more can I say except those who were knowledgeable, which included structural engineers and investigators, have confirmed that no evidence of molten steel was found at ground zero.Now, where's your evidence? Fire fighters are not morons and are more than capable of identifying the molten metal after they had cooled it down making the rest of your point entirely irrelevant...lolStructual engineers and investigators and those at GZ confirmed there was molten steel, so much for your "No evidence!" mantra....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted March 14, 2013 #1100 Share Posted March 14, 2013 (edited) Recorded SURFACE temperatures of the WTC fires were high enough to melt aluminum, but not steel. There is no photos of molten aluminium in the rubble at GZ cause photos were not allowed. On the contrary, we have these photos of molten aluminum dripping from WTC2, and remember, they are falling toward the ground, not rising into the sky. Simple common sense would dictate that the molten aluminum you see in the photos would have been found within the rubble of the WTC buildings. Edited March 14, 2013 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts