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

Accounts from untrained eyes and inexperienced people do not count.
Professors and Ironworkers are untrained eyes? lol
After all, Babe Ruth misidentified aluminum of the WTC facade as stainless steel during his visit in New York. I didn't need to be present to determine that he was incorrect.
What a poor comparison! lol Based on that, that must mean that everything you say is true and everything everyone else says is incorrect?? lol

You need to be there if you think those at GZ are misidentifying steel regardless of whether you corrected Babe Ruth or not..lol

Yes, which was clearly evident.
They were not smouldering at all....lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoldering

Smouldering (or smoldering) is the slow, low-temperature, flameless form of combustion, sustained by the heat evolved when oxygen directly attacks the surface of a condensed-phase fuel.

Do any of these sound like a low temperature flameless form of combustion?? :blink:

September 16–Thermal imagery measures the progression of underground heat on about a weekly basis. These images are produced in 8-bit grayscale, with brightness levels of 0-255, 0 being the hottest and expressed as pure white. This is known as emissive data, or heat being given off from the structure from underlying hot debris or molten steel. Smoldering is yet undetectable, because potential fires appear cold until they are exposed to air. The first thermal images produced began on September 16, and are repeated on two day intervals. - Maddalena Romano, “Mapping Ground Zero,” GeoNews, Hunter College Dept. of Geography, Vol. 15, no. 1, October 2001

“Metal of Honor: The Ironworkers of 9/11″ was a 2006 Spike TV program (by Rachel Maguire, aired Sept. 5) that featured numerous fascinating comments on the extreme heat of underground fires, which were finally extinguished mid-December, according to Spike. One comment from ironworker Larry Keating is repeated in a review by Linda Stasi: “The film shows how they crawled down through and up 100 feet of hot steel, even though sometimes it could explode when the buried ends were exposed to the air.” (See http://www.najaproductions.com/images/pdf/NYP.pdf )

Keating says: “The grapplers were pulling stuff out, big sections of iron that were literally on fire on the other end. They would hit the air and burst into flames– which was pretty spooky to see.” (Watch at

)

The fires got very intense down there and actually melted beams where it was molten steel that was being dug up. - Richard Riggs, Debris Removal Specialist in “World Trade Center: Rise and Fall of an American Icon,” THC, 2002.

It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods [to] Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. ‘Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel,the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s [sic] and the thousands who fled that disaster,’ he said.

“As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running.” (James Williams, “SEAUNEWS, The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah,” October 2001

New York mayor Rudy Giuliani said “They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of fires 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days.”http://nymag.com/news/features/28517

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 that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.

- http://www.osha.gov/Publications/WTC/dangerous_worksite.html

The ‘hot spots,’ where intensely burning debris generated temperatures in excess of 1300 degrees Fahrenheit, posed a significant danger to relief workers. NASA had an instrument that could provide information that would be useful to emergency responders. NASA’s Airborne Visible infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS"]http://0x1a.com/#AVIRIS]AVIRIS) science instrument was capable of providing data that could be used to filter smoke and locate extreme hot spots.

- http://amelia.db.erau.edu/nasacds/200406Disc2/research/20040071086_2004065539.pdf

“Two weeks after the attack, the rubble, the Pile, is still 7 stories tall. Below, in the Pit it burns like the gates of hell. It is 1200 degrees, so hot that the steel work lifted by the grapplers comes out soft. I’ve never seen anything like this.” – http://www.ukfssart.org.uk/wtc%20ground%20zero.htm

I suppose smouldering in your world actually means high temperatures and flame combustions?? lol

I'm afraid your loose use of the term smouldering cannot be used to describe the fires at GZ according to those who were actually there. Unless this is another one of those Skyeagles expertise beats all other eyewitness accounts and those at GZ are clueless...lol

What do you think would happen as the rubble was opened to oxygen?
There was probably a temperature increase, so those 2000F temps you keep going on about probably got a lot hotter. lol
What do you do after you put out a camp fire and why?
I usually cover it in rubble and leave it for a few weeks and come back to it, knowing that the temperatures is still hot enough to melt aluminium. lol
There was no steel foundry at ground zero, however, aluminum will melt at the temperatures recorded at ground zero. How many tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the construction of a typical B-767?
Whoever said there was a steel foundry at GZ?? lol

What I think you'll find is that you are cracking up again and are creating arguments that no one said? What I thinj you have done is confused yourself, I think that some of those at GZ describe it was like a foundry, like lava, like a volcano, but none of them actually suggest there was a foundry or a volcano at GZ, they describe that is what the fires were like and unfortunately, being a keyboard warrior doesn't debunk those at GZ.

Internal temperatures beneath the rubble was well below 2000 degrees which was evident as the workers raised glowing "cherry hot" steel beams. Using the temperature chart provided, what is the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams?
After 6 weeks for firefighters throwing water one the pile to cool it down. So I'm sure they were also dripping with molten steel in the weeks before as describe by many eyewitnesses...lol
A "cherry red" steel beam is by no means, in a molten state, however, the temperature of "cherry red" steel beam is above the melting point of aluminum but well below the melting point of steel, which explains why the "cherry red" steel beams were not in a molten state as they were pulled from the rubble. Aluminum in contact with "cherry red" steel beams will not remain in a solid state very long because the temperature of "cherry red" steel beams is above the melting point of aluminum, so what do you think will be dripping off those "cherry red" steel beams since the temperature is above the melting point of aluminum?

No one describes the molten metal as aluminium, you know why, cause molten aluminium is easy to spot because of it's low emissivity and high reflectivity. There is not a single quote from anyone supporting the idea that this molten metal was aluminium and not everyone can be mistaken especially when you we have engineers, fire fighters and even iron workers as well as tons of other people who describe it as steel.

Seeing as there was much more steel in the towers than aluminium, evidence suggests that it was steel as they described and not aluminium as described by an internet warrior who thinks the evidence he posts supports his claim and that he knows better than those at GZ. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read the following information.

I love how you debunkers think that the office fires were capable of bending (not melting of course...lol) steel.

It used to be said that for a hydrocarbon fire to be burning efficiently at higher temperatures, it needs oxygen. Yet within the rubble at GZ, where there is a severe lack of oxygen due to piles of rubble on top of each other, the fires burned very efficiently at higher temperatures, even though any fires would be consuming what little oxygen was available, yet they still managed to burn effectively at higher temperatures, close to the maximum temperature of the most efficient hydrocarbon fires which requires a lot of oxygen.

Don't worry Skyeagle, I do not expect you to address such silly contradictions. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Professors and Ironworkers are untrained eyes?

Yes! Even the colleagues of Steven Jones at BYU have disagreed with his assessment and in fact, they have distanced themselves from Steven Jones, and I might add that Steven Jones got caught trying to trick people with doctored photos. In other words, he is not credible and yet, 911 conspiracist have been using him as if he is a reliable source. The claims of Steven Jones claims have been successfully debunked.

What a poor comparison!

Goes to show that you do not have the knowledge nor expertise to understand the content of my message.

You need to be there if you think those at GZ are misidentifying steel regardless of whether you corrected Babe Ruth or not..lol

I don't need to be there by any means because investigators and demolition experts at ground zero found no evidence of molten steel. In regards to Babe Ruth, it proves my point that if you do not have the knowledge to identify metal, then you are prone to misidentify metals, and once again, where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel.

They were not smouldering at all....lol

In regards to smoldering at ground zero, I guess you missed it before.

Recovery at Ground Zero

Within hours of the destruction of the World Trade Center, ironworkers, contractors, engineers and rescue workers rushed to assist the firefighters and police. While the size of the pile seemed insurmountable, rescue workers were anxious to recover any survivors trapped within the smoldering wreckage.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you debunkers think that the office fires were capable of bending (not melting of course...lol) steel.

Well, take a look at what fire had done to the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain to where only the concrete core was left standing. That crumpled mess you see in the photo is what was left of the steel structure.What is left is concrete.

madrid_remains.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how you debunkers think that the office fires were capable of bending (not melting of course...lol) steel.

You don't know much about steel and fires. Check it out because office fires burn at temperatures high enough to weaken steel and melt aluminum. What you didn't know about steel.

ca5010617c.jpg

g3a.jpg

Why British Rails Buckle in Heat

Steel expands in heat. A length of 10 metres at 15C would be almost 2 millimetres longer at 30C. Which is why a long stretch of continuous welded railway track exposed to yesterday's heat could expand, buckle and bulge along its length by a metre or more - a buckle big enough to be spotted in plenty of time by a train driver even at 60 mph.

http://www.guardian....ransportintheuk

Midwest roads and rails buckle under intense heat

OMAHA -- The intense heat wave enveloping much of the country is causing metal railroad rails and asphalt roads in some Midwestern states to expand and buckle, forcing transportation officials to scramble to make repairs and causing rail operators to pay extra-close attention to the safety of their tracks.

Omaha-based Union Pacific Railroad said Wednesday that the heat has affected the operations of its entire northern division and that it is having workers inspect its tracks up to twice a day. "In extreme heat, you get a phenomenon called a 'track buckle' or 'sun kink,'" Union Pacific spokesman Mark Davis said. "When you get extreme heat and the metal rail wants to expand, it looks for a weak spot in the track structure itself to do that.

http://journalstar.c...8a84962414.html

Now, read the following and understand why the buckling of the WTC buildings was the result of fires raging with those buildings.

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

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.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

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

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses.

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

WORLD TRADE CENTER - SOME ENGINEERING ASPECTS

Why Did It Collapse?

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

http://sydney.edu.au...civil/wtc.shtml

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.

Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2O3RfXfky

Why the World Trade Center Towers Fell on September 11

Engineers Explain the Twin Tower Collapse

Heat from the Fires

The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense.

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F. This is not hot enough to melt structural steel. However, engineers say that for the World Trade Center towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength. Steel will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel will also become distorted when heat is not a uniform temperature.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a single quote from anyone supporting the idea that this molten metal was aluminum...

First of all, these photos prove beyond any doubt the molten metal is aluminum.

Moltenal.jpg

0.jpg

GZ_4144_fema-resized_molten-metal-on-beam.jpg

Secondly, there were reports of aluminum.

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE , NEW YORK

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the building's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the airliner's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out of the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Fifty-six minutes and 10 seconds after it was hit, the top of the south building tilted horribly, to the east and then to the south, and initiated the collapse of the entire tower, floor upon floor.

http://www.taipeitim.../03/30/129774/4

Was molten metal in the basements caused by demolitions materials?

...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: Un-building the World Trade Center” of a subterranean parking lot:

Along the north side, where the basement structure remained strong and intact (and was ulti-mately 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.

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

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:

(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding

on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of

anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to

cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower.

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy

airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the

morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed

about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the

fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were

fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed

from series 2000 aluminum alloys.

Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg,

and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower

the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to

about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that

the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some

of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before

its collapse.

But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on

9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten

aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and

NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the

pertinent references:

FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter

 Boeing 767 aircraft separately strike WTC 1 & 2 and flaming wreckage becomes

lodged in the upper floors of each Tower.

 Combustibles, such as office furniture, paper and plastic, start to burn, fuelled by at

least 10,00 liters of kerosene, and the temperature in the impact zone begins to rise.

 After about 30 minutes, the fires subside, but black smoke continues to pour out of both

Towers showing that the fires are not “out”, but “smoldering”.

 After about 40 minutes, parts of the airframe in WTC 2 approached the critical

temperature range of 500 - 550 C where aluminum alloys starts to soften and melt.

 At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2.

 The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through

other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also

falls onto fractured concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite

explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires.

 The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged

steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.

 The remains of the semi-molten airframe fall to the floor below and mix with fresh

combustible material, air, water, thermite reagents (crushed concrete, gypsum, rust), and

sections of aluminum cladding from the Tower’s fa€ade, initiating more explosions.

 This sequence of events is now repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly

violent cascade of destruction. Gravity adds momentum to the downward acceleration of

the mass of debris and WTC 2 collapses in less than 16 seconds.

 The burning aluminum remaining at the end of the collapse glows brightly for a

moment and illuminates the rising clouds of smoke and dust at ground zero.

 About 25 minutes later, the temperature of the aircraft wreckage in WTC 1 reaches the

critical 500 - 550 C range where molten aluminum starts to flow. The sequence of

events observed in WTC 2 is repeated in WTC 1 and a second global collapse ensues.

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, 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."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! Even the colleagues of Steven Jones at BYU have disagreed with his assessment and in fact, they have distanced themselves from Steven Jones, and I might add that Steven Jones got caught trying to trick people with doctored photos. In other words, he is not credible and yet, 911 conspiracist have been using him as if he is a reliable source. The claims of Steven Jones claims have been successfully debunked.

Was Steven Jones at GZ?? Was he one of the professors or ironworkers at GZ who witnessed molten steel?? lol

I think you'll find the answer to both questions is a big fat "NO!"..lol

Go back and read the conversations and you will see the only person who brings up Steven Jones is you, even if you think Steven Jones is wrong, it doesn't debunk the eyewitnesses at GZ. Neither does being a internet keyboard warrior who proclaims to be smarter than everyone else whose response highlight that he is about as smart as artificial intelligence on a VIC20. lol

Goes to show that you do not have the knowledge nor expertise to understand the content of my message.
I understand fully, you corrected Babe Ruth, therefore everything you say is correct.

Please tell us all what I have no understood? Cause as I keep saying, if there was something I truly did not understand, you would be only to delighted to point it out...lol

I don't need to be there by any means because investigators and demolition experts at ground zero found no evidence of molten steel.
That is because explosives were never tested for...lol
In regards to Babe Ruth, it proves my point that if you do not have the knowledge to identify metal, then you are prone to misidentify metals, and once again, where he misidentified aluminum as stainless steel.
No, all it proves is that Babe Ruth was incorrect.

It certainly doesn't prove that all of those at GZ were wrong. lol What a silly leap of logic you have made...lol...but then again, you and logic are stuck together like two north ends of a magnet.

In regards to smoldering at ground zero, I guess you missed it before.
Evidently, you are taking his quote out of context because if one person describes the fire as smouldering, that mean it must be true at the expense and ignorance of plenty of other eyewitness accounts?? lol :blink:

So the fires were at a low temperatures and flameless combustion at GZ, even though the eyewitnesses I showed describe nothing of a sort and contradict the definition of smouldering.

Yeah, they were smouldering alright, like a volcano or like a foundry, smouldering like the pits of hell, or they were a smouldering rage.....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, take a look at what fire had done to the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain to where only the concrete core was left standing. That crumpled mess you see in the photo is what was left of the steel structure.What is left is concrete.

madrid_remains.jpg

Lets look at more relative comparisons again seeing as you have brought this into the equation....lol

The WTC1,2 & 7 were high rise steel structures that collapsed due to fires after an hour and 7 hours, respectively.

So we have the following comparisons which are all high rise steel structures, all on fires, lets see how they perform shall we?

The One Meridian Plaza, which was high rise steel structure like the WTC1,2 & 7.

meridian_plaza_c.jpg

It survived and no part of the building collapsed, after being engulfed in flames for 18 hours!!

The First Interstate Bank is another high rise steel structure just like the WTC1,2 & 7.

fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg

Fires raged for almost 4 hours and yet it survived and no part of the building collapsed.

The 1 New York Plaza which was a 50 storey high rise steel structure just like the WTC1,2 & 7.

1_new_york_plaza.jpg

Back in the 1970's it suffered an explosions and fires burned for over 6 hours and yet it is still standing.

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel which was a 520ft high rise steel structure, just like WTC 1,2 & 7.

beijing_torch.jpg

It was completely engulfed in flames for over 3 hours and yet, no part of the building collapsed.

WTC 5 was not a high rise but was a steel structure, just like WTC 1, 2, & 7.

wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

It was engulfed for many hours and yet it didn't collapse.

Now lets look at other buildings which are not high rise steel structures which collapsed and yet somehow Skyeagle thinks these are better buildings to compare to the WTC 1,2 & 7.

The Kader Toy Factor was not a high rise building unlike WTC 1,2 & 7, but was probably a steel structure just like them.

kade-m16.jpg

And it collapses.

The McCormick Buildings were not a high rise building like WTC1,2 & 7 but it was probably a steel frame structure

mccormick_fire.jpg

And it partially collapses.

An over pass is neither a high rise structure but it is a steel structure, even though it is also covered in concrete too.

collapse2.600..jpg

Oh and it collapses too.

So what have we learned.......

  • All of the buildings which are the closest comparison to the WTC 1,2 & 7 which are both high rise and steel framed structures survived after fires.
  • All of the buildings/structures which are the furthest comparisons to the WTC 1,2 & 7 which are either not high rise or not steel framed structures collapsed after fires.

Edited by Stundie
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, these photos prove beyond any doubt the molten metal is aluminum.
No they do not...lol

Aluminium loses it's heat very quickly and the flow coming from the WTC are a closer comparison to steel.

If aluminium was glowing that hot at that temperature, it would be like water, not thick globules dripping slowly from the WTC.

Secondly, there were reports of aluminium.
Sorry but the person reporting the aluminium is not qualified to make that judgement according to your OWN LOGIC....lol

Only a metallurgist is capable of identifying molten metals, as you have been telling me over and over again.

Here is what happens when the NIST tried to recreate the molten aluminium.

There was no steel foundry at ground zero, and remember this:
And here is me thinking that the WTC were not buildings but actually steel foundries....lol

Again, this highlights how you take quotes out of context because not a single person claimed there was a steel foundry at GZ, they claimed it was like a foundry and I'm more inclined to take the words of people who were actually at GZ rather than some anonymous debunking internet keyboard warrior who thinks he knows better...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that were on fire

  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived
  • WTC 5 - Survived

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire.

  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse
  • An overpass - Collapsed.

And....

  • Anyone who says they saw molten steel, needs to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten steel.
  • Anyone who says they saw molten aluminium, doesn't need to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten aluminium.

Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at more relative comparisons again seeing as you have brought this into the equation....lol

The WTC1,2 & 7 were high rise steel structures that collapsed due to fires after an hour and 7 hours, respectively.

The cause of their collapse was due to fires and imapact damage.

So we have the following comparisons which are all high rise steel structures, all on fires, lets see how they perform shall we?

The One Meridian Plaza, which was high rise steel structure like the WTC1,2 & 7.

meridian_plaza_c.jpg

It survived and no part of the building collapsed, after being engulfed in flames for 18 hours!!

It didn't suffer from impact damage unlike the WTC buildings

The First Interstate Bank is another high rise steel structure just like the WTC1,2 & 7.

fib_la_fire_lg_s.jpg

Fires raged for almost 4 hours and yet it survived and no part of the building collapsed.

It didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings.

1_new_york_plaza.jpg

Back in the 1970's it suffered an explosions and fires burned for over 6 hours and yet it is still standing.

It didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings.

The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel which was a 520ft high rise steel structure, just like WTC 1,2 & 7.

beijing_torch.jpg

It was completely engulfed in flames for over 3 hours and yet, no part of the building collapsed.

It didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC buildings.

WTC 5 was not a high rise but was a steel structure, just like WTC 1, 2, & 7.

wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

It was engulfed for many hours and yet it didn't collapse.

They didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC 1 WTC 2 and WTC 7.

Now lets look at other buildings which are not high rise steel structures which collapsed and yet somehow Skyeagle thinks these are better buildings to compare to the WTC 1,2 & 7.

The Kader Toy Factor was not a high rise building unlike WTC 1,2 & 7, but was probably a steel structure just like them.

kade-m16.jpg

And it collapses.

Of course, and they did not have fire protection for the steel structures unlike the other buildings.

The McCormick Buildings were not a high rise building like WTC1,2 & 7 but it was probably a steel frame structure

mccormick_fire.jpg

And it partially collapses.

The roof collapsed due to fires.

An over pass is neither a high rise structure but it is a steel structure, even though it is also covered in concrete too.

collapse2.600..jpg

Oh and it collapses too.

Due to a gasoline fire.

So what have we learned.......

That you didn't take into an account the condition of the fire protection for the other buildings and unlike the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, they did not suffer from massive impact damage and whose steel structures were exposed directly to fires due to the impacts and you didn't take into an account the dissimilar construction techniques used in their constructions.

The only reason why the rest of the Windsor building did not collapse is because concrete was used as a structure core. In fact, there are a number of factors you failed to address in regards to the comparison of other fires and of the WTC buildings. You also failed to understand why it has been confirmed by experts that the three WTC buildings collapsed due to fires.

911 conspiracist tend to overlook the important things when comparing WTC fires with fires of other buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they do not...lol

Yes they did and the photos prove they would have seen huge amounts of molten aluminum within the rubble. After all, where did you think these molten aluminum droplets fell?

Moltenal.jpg

0.jpg

GZ_4144_fema-resized_molten-metal-on-beam.jpg

Aluminium loses it's heat very quickly and the flow coming from the WTC are a closer comparison to steel.

It is very clear from the silvery droplets that the molten metal is aluminum, not steel and once again, nothing was found in the rubble that could have generate enough heat to melt steel and there was no steel foundry at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that were on fire

  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived
  • WTC 5 - Survived

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire.

  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse
  • An overpass - Collapsed.

And....

  • Anyone who says they saw molten steel, needs to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten steel.
  • Anyone who says they saw molten aluminium, doesn't need to be a metallurgist to be able to identify molten aluminium.

Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all. :w00t:

On the contrary, you failed to address the issues regarding those buildings vs. the WTC buildings. I think you overlooked something.

First Time in History

Conspiracy Theorists bring up the fact that the towers were the first steel high rises to fall from fire in history. The fact is the towers had other firsts that day they never seem to include.

There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its
. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. Not the
did not have almost 40 stories of load on its supports after being hit by another building which left a
. The Madrid tower lost portions of its steel frame from the fire. Windsor's central core was steel reinforced concrete. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been without some fire fighters fighting the fires.

I could go on with the "Firsts" but you get the drift. The statement that the WTC buildings were the first high-rise buildings to collapse from fire is deceptive because it purposely doesn't take those factors into account.

Conspiracy sites point to the building falling straight down as proof the buildings were blown up. Even Professor Jones uses this in his paper as an indication of controlled demolition.

fallover.jpg

But Jones and others making this claim know very well that these buildings are not built like the towers. Most of the buildings they point to are steel reinforced concrete buildings or have steel reinforced concrete cores. Others are constructed with a steel web evenly distributed throughout the building. These buildings are not a "tube in a tube" design. The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.

"It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time. Engineers hope that answering the question of exactly why these towers collapsed will help engineers make even safer skyscrapers in the future. ASCE will file its final report soon, and NIST has been asked to conduct a much broader investigation into the buildings' collapse."

But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually. It's like taking a car accident apart and saying the car shouldn't have skidded off the road because the factory said the car could grip up to .97 g's. While that might be true, the conditions on the road must be factored in. Was there rain, dirt, gravel, anything which could have contributed to the crash? Conspiracy theorists are engaged in deliberate disinformation when they talk about these factors in a vacuum. They KNOW these factors can't be separated.

The PBS special did a good job of explaining the difference between the towers construction and these other buildings conspiracy theorists like to point to. Most steel buildings have a web of steel like this...

steelweb.jpg

The towers had most of the steel in this web on its skin to save office space. Like this...

perimeter.jpg

Note: What's missing from the above photo are the core columns but they are not needed to show the difference in building construction. Conspiracy theorists will be quick to point out this photo doesn't show the core columns but this isn't here to show how many stick figures someone can create. It's here to show how the building had a vastly different design than the average building. If you're a conspiracy theorist just imagine your 47 box columns in the core. (The dark area in the center) The building will still be built differently, box columns in this image or not.

WTC7.h3.jpg

Let's do a review.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed: A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses.

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

WORLD TRADE CENTER - SOME ENGINEERING ASPECTS

Why Did It Collapse?

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

http://sydney.edu.au...civil/wtc.shtml

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is what happens when the NIST tried to recreate the molten aluminium.

[media=]

[/media]

I hope you noticed the silvery droplets as he pours the aluminum because I have posted photos of molten metal in the form of silvery droplets falling from WTC2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BZUR8JQ13U

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTC 5 was not a high rise but was a steel structure, just like WTC 1, 2, & 7.

wtc5_fire_floors.jpg

It was engulfed for many hours and yet it didn't collapse.

They didn't suffer from impact damage on the level of the WTC 1 WTC 2 and WTC 7.

Patently and evidently false....lol

The fires at WTC5 are much much bigger than the fires in the WTC 1, 2 & 7 compared to the size of the building. We can clearly see at least floors 5, 6 & 7 engulfed in flames which is 3 floors out of the 9 floors WTC5 had.

So that is around 33% of the buildings floors are visibly engulfed in flames and yet it still stood.

It also suffered much more impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 than WTC 7 which like WTC 5 was not hit by a plane. Look at the fricking holes in the building...lol

5-wtc-photo.jpg

WTC5 still stood even though it took a lot more of the brunt of the debris from WTC 1 & 2 collapse because it was closer to them than WTC7.

578px-WTC_Area_With_Building_Numbers_50dpi.png

Even WTC6 still stood although that building has a huge gaping hole directly in the middle of it...lol

So the next time you reply, please have a think before you type out idiomatic responses which in no way address the points...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Patently and evidently false....lol

The fires at WTC5 are much much bigger than the fires in the WTC 1, 2 & 7 compared to the size of the building. We can clearly see at least floors 5, 6 & 7 engulfed in flames which is 3 floors out of the 9 floors WTC5 had.

So that is around 33% of the buildings floors are visibly engulfed in flames and yet it still stood.

It also suffered much more impact damage from the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 than WTC 7 which like WTC 5 was not hit by a plane. Look at the fricking holes in the building...lol

5-wtc-photo.jpg

WTC5 still stood even though it took a lot more of the brunt of the debris from WTC 1 & 2 collapse because it was closer to them than WTC7.

578px-WTC_Area_With_Building_Numbers_50dpi.png

Even WTC6 still stood although that building has a huge gaping hole directly in the middle of it...lol

So the next time you reply, please have a think before you type out idiomatic responses which in no way address the points...lol

None of that has any bearing as to the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As I have mentioned before, you failed to account for the fire protection of other buildings vs. the lack of fire protection of WTC!, WTC2, and WTC7, whose steel structures were openly exposed to the fires, which was evidence by the fact the observance of buckling just prior to the collapse of those buildings, which indicated that fires were affecting the steel structures of those buildings, not to mention the massive impact damages suffered.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you noticed the silvery droplets as he pours the aluminum because I have posted photos of molten metal in the form of silvery droplets falling from WTC2.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BZUR8JQ13U[/media]

Sorry but the video of the NIST trying to create the so called glowing orange molten aluminium looks nothing like the stuff pouring out from WTC2.

However, what I notice is that molten aluminium in the NIST video I posted is very liquidly and almost water like in consistency, even though it is at a much lower temperature than the stuff pouring out of WTC2 because the so called aluminium is glowing bright orange from the WTC2.

Does aluminium start become more solid and less watery in consistency when you heat it above it's melting point, so that it glows bright orange?? :blink: lol

And using your metal expertise, at what temperature is the so called aluminium pouring from the WTC2, according to your temperature colour chart?? lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the video of the NIST trying to create the so called glowing orange molten aluminium looks nothing like the stuff pouring out from WTC2.

Now wait a minute!! If you go back to a segment of the video you posted, you will see a bit of orange color in the cup as he pours the aluminum, whose silvery droplets match the silvery droplets seen falling from WTC2.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of that has any bearing as to the collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. As I have mentioned before, you failed to account for the fire protection of other buildings vs. the lack of fire protection of WTC!, WTC2, and WTC7, whose steel structures were openly exposed to the fires, which was evidence by the fact the observance of buckling just prior to the collapse of those buildings, which indicated that fires were affecting the steel structures of those buildings..

Oh but it does when you are using a toy factory from a third world country, a building which is constructed out of completely different materials, a building whose roof collapsed and an overpass to state your case....lol

All of a sudden, the closer comparisons are no longer relevant now they disprove your point entirely....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[

Now wait a minute. If you go back to a segment of the video you posted, you will see a bit of orange color as he pours the aluminum, whose silvery droplets match the silvery droplets seen falling from WTC2.

Utter b***ocks!! lol

The video of the NIST trying to create the glowing orange fails and turns silvery the moment it's being poured.

Where as the so called aluminium in the video stay bright orange while it falls for many floors.

And more importantly, the consistency in the WTC2 is not as liquid/watery as the molten aluminium in the video I posted.

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh but it does when you are using a toy factory from a third world country, a building which is constructed out of completely different materials,...

The frames did not have fire protection.

...a building whose roof collapsed and an overpass to state your case....

Another case where fire weaken the steel to the point of collapse and there was no fire protection for its steel frame either.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire are great to use and prove that fires brought down the WTC, even though none of them suffered impact damage.

  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed - No impact damage
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • An overpass - Collapsed - No impact damage

Yet....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that had bigger fires are NOT great to use and disprove that fires brought down the WTC, even though one of them suffered much more impact damage than WTC7,

  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived - No impact damage
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived - No impact damage
  • WTC 5 - Survived - Suffered impact damage

Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all...AGAIN!!! lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to round this all off into a easy to read summary .....

Other buildings and structures, which are nothing like the WTC's that were on fire are great to use and prove that fires brought down the WTC, even though none of them suffered impact damage.

  • Windsor Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • Kader Toy Factory - Collapsed - No impact damage
  • McCormick Building - Partial Collapse - No impact damage
  • An overpass - Collapsed - No impact damage

You failed to understand the steel structures were unprotected from fire.

Yet....

High rise steel structures like the WTC's that had bigger fires are NOT great to use and disprove that fires brought down the WTC, even though one of them suffered much more impact damage than WTC7,

  • The One Meridian Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The First Interstate Bank - Survived - No impact damage
  • The 1 New York Plaza - Survived - No impact damage
  • The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel - Survived - No impact damage
  • WTC 5 - Survived - Suffered impact damage

Of course, there is nothing contradictory or even hypocritical about any of this at all...AGAIN!!! lol

You failed to understand that fire protection remained intact. There was fire protection for the steel structures of the WTC buildings, but the impacts knocked off fire protection which exposed their steel structures directly to raging fires. As one person put it, had the fire protection of the WTC buildings remained intact, the buildings would have remained standing despite the impacts and fires, but without fire protection, steel is dead meat for fires, which is why steel-framed buildings have fire protection in the fire place.

I should also mention that steel structures of many buildings are encased in concrete.

ENCASED BEAMS

When a steel beam is encased in cement concrete throughout the entire length, it is called an encased beam. The cased beam is shown in figure below.

clip_image00221.jpg

What does the following article have to say about fire protection and the WTC buildings?

Fire Protection of Structural Steel.....

http://dcstructural...._protection.pdf

And now, the clincher:

How to Control Fire: Protecting the Structure of the Building

The collapse of the World Trade Center Towers in Manhattan after a terrorist attack was the result of the inability of fireproofing materials to protect steel framing members from very prolonged exposure to the unusually high temperatures of fires fed by jet air plane fuel. It would be almost impossible to construct a tall building to resist such fires. Even if possible, it would not be economical.

http://www.compactdy...cs.com/223.html

Let's do a review.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

THE FIRE

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

http://www.tms.org/p...Eagar-0112.html

fig4-sm.gif

THE COLLAPSE

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

To sum it up, if fire protection remained in intact, the WTC buildings would have withstood the impacts and resulting fires, but once again, with no fire protection, the steel structures were at the mercy of fires, which generate temperatures high enough to weaken structural steel under load to the point of structural failure.

A comparison can be made with the space shuttle whose aluminum structure is protected from high temperatures but what happens when that protection fails? You only have to look at the tragedy surrounding the space shuttle Columbia.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

200kg per occupant seems rather an arbitrary number. How was it determined? Some buildings are heavily occupied, others not so much.

How about putting some thought into your posts instead of just the first thing that comes into your head? Picture an office station - desk, chair, partitions, carpet, cabinets or shelves with lots of paper. Check out how much wood is in a typical desk, etc. What's your number for the mass of things that will burn?
It seems that some report that the WTC towers were fairly LIGHTLY occupied. I don't know, but you still cannot prove that office furniture and phone books kept iron molten for 6 weeks.

Do the maths. It doesn't take many occupants to bring the burnable mass of the office contents to a higher mass than the jet fuel. The normally quoted numbers of occupants bring the contents to dozens of times the jet fuel mass.

You're the one claiming molten iron. All I'm claiming is typical building fire temperatures.

1 person likes this

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.