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

Which is the conclusion of investigators, structural and civil engineers.

They didn't conclude this by looking at this video....lol

They concluded this from the NIST report, which didn't examine any of the steel....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't conclude this by looking at this video....

They concluded using facts and evidence, not fantasies of 911 Truthers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What has been posted on many occasions in that regard? If you can't answer that question, then you haven't been paying any attention.

That the NIST never looked for explosives...lol

2. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Although in the case of WTC7, they couldn't test none even if they wanted to because they didn't actually examine any of the steel...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That the NIST never looked for explosives..

They didn't have to. If explosives were used, clean-up crews and investigators would have had trouble avoiding from tripping over the evidence. So once again, where's the 'explosives' money?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They concluded using facts and evidence, not fantasies of 911 Truthers.

Facts and evidence from the steel they didn't examine...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Facts and evidence from the steel they didn't examine...lol

They didn't need to examine steel for explosives.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

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

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories contend that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the airliner crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance. Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

NIST did not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, stating the potential for inconclusive results, and noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't have to. If explosives were used, clean-up crews and investigators would have had trouble avoiding from tripping over the evidence. So once again, where's the 'explosives' money?

As you kept telling me..."Firefighters are not metallurgists!"...though they need to be apparently to identify molten steel...even though I never claimed they were metallugists.....lol

So in a Skyeagle stylee.... "Clean up crews" are not experts in demolitions...even though you have never claimed they are, but I might as well attribute this argument to you in honour of the style of debate I have come to receive...lol

Skyeaglisms...101!!

Why oh why do you keep repeating the notion that the clean up crews are explosive experts!

You keep arguing that clean up crews have the necessary skills and qualifications to demolish buildings!

Only a demolition expert has the knowledge to identify used explosives and clean up crews are not demolition experts as you keep implying.

Demolition experts are the only people who are capable of identifying explosives, yet you seem to think that the clean up crew are more qualified than demo experts!

That should do for my strawman attack....lol

They didn't need to examine steel for explosives.

World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

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

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories contend that the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by the airliner crash damage that occurred as part of the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting fire damage, but by explosives installed in the buildings in advance. Early advocates such as physicist Steven E. Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, and theologian David Ray Griffin, argued that the aircraft impacts and resulting fires could not have weakened the buildings sufficiently to initiate a catastrophic collapse, and that the buildings would not have collapsed completely, nor at the speeds that they did, without additional energy involved to weaken their structures.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the magazine Popular Mechanics examined and rejected these theories. Specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering accept the model of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.

NIST did not test for explosive compound residue in steel samples, stating the potential for inconclusive results, and noting that similar compounds would have been present during construction of the towers.

They did if they want to prove that no explosives were used. Then those twoofin twoofhers wouldn't be able to claim there the possibility of explosives. Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you kept telling me..."Firefighters are not metallurgists!"...though they need to be apparently to identify molten steel...even though I never claimed they were metallugists...

Then why did you try to take their word as if they were metallurgists? There was no molten steel at ground zero nor anything other than torches and wand, capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why did you try to take their word as if they were metallurgists?

I didn't take their word for it as if they were metallurgists.

I took there word for it because these guys were putting out the fires and because so many other witnesses refer to it as molten steel and not aluminium.

There was no molten steel at ground zero nor anything other than torches and wand, capable of producing molten steel at ground zero.
Just like there was no explosions, except for the mutiple eyewitness accounts and videos.

Its amazing really...Lets round this up in to a Skyeagle logic gate.

There is no molten steel cause even though there are plenty of eyewitness,there is no video of it.

There is no explosions cause even though there are plenty of eyewitness and video of it.

Highlighting again how much of a hypocrite you are because according to your logic.....

There is molten aluminiumcause even though there are no eyewitnesses, there is also NO video of it.

There is elevators crashing cause even though there are eyewitness, there is also NO video of it.

Truly pathetic debunking, but the problem is that you are too simple to realise that you've got the dunce cap on and are sat in the corner..lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't take their word for it as if they were metallurgists.

Should I go back and reproduce your comments on the issue?

I took there word for it because these guys were putting out the fires and because so many other witnesses refer to it as molten steel and not aluminium.

They do not possess the knowledge needed to differentiate molten steel from molten aluminum. In addition, we have videos and photos as molten aluminum is flowing out of WTC and since that area is where tons of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the fires that can be seen in that ares which are burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, it is safe to say that the molten flow is aluminum, which can also be confirmed by the fact that silvery aluminum droplets can be clearly seen falling from that point.

Most of the molten aluminum would have been contained within the WTC building from where the aluminum flow commenced, so where did you think that tons of molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 would end up after WTC2 collapsed? There would have been tons of molten aluminum within the rubble.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They do not possess the knowledge needed to differentiate molten steel from molten aluminum.
You do not need to be a metallurgist to recognise steel....lol
In addition, we have videos and photos as molten aluminum is flowing out of WTC and since that area is where tons of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the fires that can be seen in that ares which are burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, it is safe to say that the molten flow is aluminum, which can also be confirmed by the fact that silvery aluminum droplets can be clearly seen falling from that point.
No it is not safe to say because the molten metal neither looks or behaves lile aluminium

Most of the molten aluminum would have been contained within the WTC building from where the aluminum flow commenced, so where did you think that tons of molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 would end up after WTC2 collapsed? There would have been tons of molten aluminum within the rubble.

I'm sure there would be lots of aluminium in the rubble, just like there was lots of steel too.

Its hilarious that you think that even ironworkers who say they witnessed molten steel at GZ are not capable of recognising molten steel....lol

Even more hypocritical is that you seem to believe that a metallugist isn't needed to identify molten aluminium. Which begs the question, if molten aluminium is so easy to identify, that it doesn't require the expertise of a metallurgist according to your logic to identify it, then surely it must mean they would have identified it as molten aluminium if they saw it.

Which they obviously didn't...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not need to be a metallurgist to recognise steel...

Yes they do. After all, some have claimed that they saw molten steel and yet, no evidence to support their case while on the other hand, we have videos and photos of molten aluminum and proof that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but far too low to melt steel.

In addition, there was no source at ground zero capable of producing molten steel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews, but that is not what we are talking about, so in that regard, what they saw was molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 and from the facade of the WTC buildings, which contained large amounts of aluminum.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they do.

Well until you explain why you need to be a metallurgist to recognise molten steel but not molten aluminium, you fail. lol

You do not need to be a metallurgist to be able douse the molten metal and identify it...lol

After all, some have claimed that they saw molten steel and yet, no evidence to support their case while on the other hand, we have videos and photos of molten aluminum and proof that temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but far too low to melt steel.
Again, there is no evidence to support molten aluminium.

You think the things which you have invented in your head are evidence...lol

In addition, there was no source at ground zero capable of producing molten steel other than torches and wands used by clean-up crews, but that is not what we are talking about, so in that regard, what they saw was molten aluminum from the airframe of United 175 and from the facade of the WTC buildings, which contained large amounts of aluminium.
Totally unsubstantiated nonsense seeing as the dripping metal has none of the characteristics of aluminium..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well until you explain why you need to be a metallurgist to recognise molten steel but not molten aluminium, you fail.

We can simply go back a few weeks to where Babe Ruth visited New York and misidentified the aluminum facade as stainless steel.

You do not need to be a metallurgist to be able douse the molten metal and identify it..

No, but you need knowledge to identify the type of molten metal you are applying the water on.

Again, there is no evidence to support molten aluminium.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

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 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34:

“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).”

NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:

“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.”

Additionally, here are two photos of molten aluminum flowing from the same location where much of the airframe of United 175 was burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.

Moltenal.jpg

capture7.jpg

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

Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.

Stephen D. Chastain

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

In other words, the steel structure would have failed long before it reached its melting point, another fact that 911 conspiracist have overlooked. So once again, you have been proven wrong.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can simply go back a few weeks to where Babe Ruth visited New York and misidentified the aluminum facade as stainless steel.

So your argument is that because one person made a mistake, that everyone will make the mistake unless they are metallurgists or you........lol

Stunning logic...Truly!! lol

No, but you need knowledge to identify the type of molten metal you are applying the water on.
So how did the firefighters identify the metal they were going to apply the water on?? :blink:

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

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 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34:

“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal- possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).”

NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:

“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.”

Additionally, here are two photos of molten aluminum flowing from the same location where much of the airframe of United 175 was burning at temperatures above the melting point of aluminum, but far below the melting point of steel.

Moltenal.jpg

capture7.jpg

So once again, you have been proven wrong.

Sorry but the person who wrote that is not a metallurgist and therefore this entire article is pure bunkem debunkem! lol

I'm only applying the exact same logic as you.....lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your argument is that because one person made a mistake, that everyone will make the mistake unless they are metallurgists or you.......

Apparently, I have seen molten aluminum on many occasions to make the call, whereas, you have not. Let's do a review.

[media=]

[/media]

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

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.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2002/03/30/129774/1

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, I have seen molten aluminum on many occasions to make the call, whereas, you have not. Let's do a review.

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

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.

http://www.taipeitim.../03/30/129774/1

Sorry but the person who wrote that and produced the video are not metallurgists and therefore this entire article is pure hokem pokem, bunkem debunkem! lol

As you would say, until you have a metallurgist, you have no case...lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but the person who wrote that and produced the video are not metallurgists and therefore this entire article is pure hokem pokem, bunkem debunkem! lol

That doesn't work! :no: Where's your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't work! :no: Where's your evidence?

It works perfectly fine thanks.

The people who have said there were warning signs that the building was going to collapse are not qualified or have the expertise to make that judgement.

This is your own logic, you can't twist and change it to suit you...you have to be consistent which of course, highlights that your theory is about as real as the wonderland that Alice saw...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It works perfectly fine thanks.

I guess your evidence is lost and roaming in the jungle of African because it is definitely not here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess your evidence is lost and roaming in the jungle of African because it is definitely not here.

No the evidence has slapped in you in the face like a wet fish, the problem is that you deny the existence of your own face unless a doctor confirms that you actually have a face...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the evidence has slapped in you in the face like a wet fish, the problem is that you deny the existence of your own face unless a doctor confirms that you actually have a face..

That doesn't work! :no: Where is your evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't work! :no: Where is your evidence?

I've already told you, but apparently, eyewitnesses and video and recordings are no longer evidence when compared to a panto debunker sitting behind their keyboard claiming to know better than everyone at GZ...lol Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already told you, but apparently, eyewitnesses and video and recordings are no longer evidence when compared to a panto debunker sitting behind their keyboard claiming to know better than everyone at GZ...lol

Videos did not capture the sound of bomb explosions and once again, I will ask you: What type of explosions are common in New York City?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Videos did not capture the sound of bomb explosions and once again,

[media=]

[/media]

I will ask you: What type of explosions are common in New York City?

The types of explosions which don't exist except in the minds of the hallucinated people at GZ?? At a guess?? lol Edited by Stundie

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.