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

Joc

Good posts. I'm curious if you have seen the video and heard the comments of firemen who reported "secondary explosions" and were very emphatic about it?

Sorry I can't provide a link to it, but it's two firemen sitting on a bench, covered with dust, one screwing with his radio, bloodied, talking to the camera person, and describing with much emphasis "secondary explosions."

Also, have you an opinion about the source, cause, reasons for, the molten steel present in the bowels of the buildings for many weeks?

I think I have seen that actually. It sounds familiar anyway. About the intense fire burning for weeks at the bottom of the rubble:

I live in the country and it is not uncommon for people to burn large piles of trash. I remember a couple of years ago on a property down the block from where I live, there was an old frame house with a brick chimney. They bulldozed down several trees and bulldozed down the little house and set them on fire. That thing burned forever! About three weeks after the fire was 'out' it blazed up suddenly in the middle of the night. It took a long time for that fire to actually end because all of the coals were so hot at the bottom. I suppose the intense fire at the bottom of WTC was the same. Keep in mind that buildings like that are not 'all' concrete...among the concrete debris there were desks and carpet and wood trim and furniture and bodies and plastics of every kind imaginable.

I watched a video shot from inside a house that was intentionally set on fire to show how quickly fires spread. In this video a chair was set on fire. Within less than two minutes, the entire house was an inferno. That is because the fire from the chair ignited the curtains which greatly increased the blaze...as the curtain and the chair became engulfed with flames, they were also releasing toxic and flammable gases which hit the ceiling and then rolled across the ceiling filling the whole room. After about 45 seconds, those flammable gases literally exploded and the entire house was ablaze. The point is, that all the contents of the building was reduced to a massive pile of flammable materials, mixed together with concrete, which allowed plenty of room for ventilation. The fires from the top floors continued to burn and just like a cigarette on a couch, smoldered and smoldered, until the surrounding materials ignited, then the inferno began to blaze. Once that happened, it was just like coals under a campfire...the wood burns and turns to coals and those coals take a while to die out. That's my take on the fires at the bottom.

Edited by joc
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I say it was a detailed study? I pointed out that there was a follow-up and I quoted the abstract. The original claim was yours. You obviously haven't seen the paper either, why did you claim it wasn't?

Flyingswan: “When your claim of "no detailed study" is proved false...”

http://www.unexplain...75#entry4622336

Was it not your implication that there exists a detailed study?

Not that you have seen it, by your own admittance, if it exists :lol:

I can claim that it is not a detailed study and raise the complaints that I did on the basis of the conclusion/excerpts available alone because it is quite apparent that the experiment carried out did not reflect conditions or results of the WTC debris pile, nor that alternative mechanisms were considered.

You however cannot counter-claim that the study is detailed, or make the statement that the experiment “will produced the observed result if left to continue” without reading the paper or ability to answer such outstanding fundamental questions about the level of corrosion as requested in my post #108.

In the original paper, which up to now you have accepted, it says that the steel shows evidence of temperatures "approaching 1000 deg C". What on earth makes you think that this is in any way consistent with thermite?

I’ve always accepted the original paper and still do – in particular the suggestion that the phenomenon could have begun prior to the collapses is a good one, unusual to see in the official reports, but I guess it was difficult to ignore since engineers at Fresh Kills had already raised the possibility (it's actually in a video somewhere, where they find this thinned steelwork and remark that it could have contributed to the collapses).

Your question is easily answered. The steel analysed was obviously not the area that had been fully corroded/melted (i.e. impossible since that was where the holes and missing steel existed); it was from the periphery or residual effect of where the thermite contacted the steelwork and did most damage and therefore is found to have experienced lower temperatures. Had the material from the holes and missing steel been tested (you remember all those reports of molten, specifically steel), it may well have been found to have experienced thermite-like temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The steel analysed was obviously not the area that had been fully corroded/melted (i.e. impossible since that was where the holes and missing steel existed); it was from the periphery or residual effect of where the thermite contacted the steelwork...

Disinformation Alert!!

There was no evidence that thermite was involved, much less attached to anything during the WTC attacks. :no: What you are doing is spewing disinformation because no one found evidence that thermite was responsible.

Had the material from the holes and missing steel been tested (you remember all those reports of molten, specifically steel), it may well have been found to have experienced thermite-like temperatures.

Thermite does not leave behind molten steel for days. Check it out.

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Video removed due to copyright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joc

Good posts. I'm curious if you have seen the video and heard the comments of firemen who reported "secondary explosions" and were very emphatic about it?

People in Hawaii were emphatic about hearing explosions as well, that is, until it was determined the sounds they heard were buildings in the process of breaking up during a storm. I have seen many explosions and I did not see any explosion either, and no explosions were detected on seismic monitors in the local area. In other words, there is no evidence that bombs were used to bring down the WTC buildings, much less nuclear bombs, which you suggested, and never was.

Sorry I can't provide a link to it, but it's two firemen sitting on a bench, covered with dust, one screwing with his radio, bloodied, talking to the camera person, and describing with much emphasis "secondary explosions."

And, firemen saying that the explosions they heard were crashing elevators.

Also, have you an opinion about the source, cause, reasons for, the molten steel present in the bowels of the buildings for many weeks?

Thermite does not leave behind molten steel for days, much less weeks. :no: You need to understand what exothermic reaction of iron is all about because it is very clear that you do not. :no:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you have. I was thinking about what you said about the 'sound' of explosives. I remember a place I used to work and from time to time some joker would fill a plastic back with acetylene gas and light a fuse. Damn that was loud. You are right. There is no way there were any explosions.

Can you imagine the sound and effects of thousands upon thousands of pounds of explosives going off? Check it out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYKxwWZ-aRM

This is what it takes to prepare a building

It took many months of pre-weakening and preparation just to collapse a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX. for demolition, and that was done at, or near ground level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I have seen that actually. It sounds familiar anyway. About the intense fire burning for weeks at the bottom of the rubble:

I live in the country and it is not uncommon for people to burn large piles of trash. I remember a couple of years ago on a property down the block from where I live, there was an old frame house with a brick chimney. They bulldozed down several trees and bulldozed down the little house and set them on fire. That thing burned forever! About three weeks after the fire was 'out' it blazed up suddenly in the middle of the night. It took a long time for that fire to actually end because all of the coals were so hot at the bottom. I suppose the intense fire at the bottom of WTC was the same. Keep in mind that buildings like that are not 'all' concrete...among the concrete debris there were desks and carpet and wood trim and furniture and bodies and plastics of every kind imaginable.

I watched a video shot from inside a house that was intentionally set on fire to show how quickly fires spread. In this video a chair was set on fire. Within less than two minutes, the entire house was an inferno. That is because the fire from the chair ignited the curtains which greatly increased the blaze...as the curtain and the chair became engulfed with flames, they were also releasing toxic and flammable gases which hit the ceiling and then rolled across the ceiling filling the whole room. After about 45 seconds, those flammable gases literally exploded and the entire house was ablaze. The point is, that all the contents of the building was reduced to a massive pile of flammable materials, mixed together with concrete, which allowed plenty of room for ventilation. The fires from the top floors continued to burn and just like a cigarette on a couch, smoldered and smoldered, until the surrounding materials ignited, then the inferno began to blaze. Once that happened, it was just like coals under a campfire...the wood burns and turns to coals and those coals take a while to die out. That's my take on the fires at the bottom.

Right, I understand what you're saying.

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires. College professors involved. What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point. Yes, boiling point.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

In your opinion, do you think wood trim and furniture and plastics could generate such heat?

Do you realize that the medical examiner is on record stating that many of the human bodies he found, the remains, had been essentially vaporized, as though they had been cremated? Do you know the temperature necessary to cremate the human body?

I don't remember the number, but it's very high.

Jetfuel, wood trim, office furnishings and the like CANNOT generate such temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires. College professors involved. What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point. Yes, boiling point.

You have to remember that thermite does not leave behind molten metal for days. Look up exothermic reactions of iron.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

So, what does that have to do with thermite? Check this out.

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

Iron Burns

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

http://www.debunking...m/ironburns.htm

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

Your post is another prime example of how 911 conspiracist spew disinformation and false claims in contrary to facts and evidence, and remember, there was no way that nuclear bombs brought down the WTC buildings as you've suggested.

Edited by skyeagle409
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I understand what you're saying.

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires. College professors involved. What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point. Yes, boiling point.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

In your opinion, do you think wood trim and furniture and plastics could generate such heat?

Do you realize that the medical examiner is on record stating that many of the human bodies he found, the remains, had been essentially vaporized, as though they had been cremated? Do you know the temperature necessary to cremate the human body?

I don't remember the number, but it's very high.

Jetfuel, wood trim, office furnishings and the like CANNOT generate such temperatures.

Oh, I certainly think they can. Fires burning for a long time like that don't have a constant temperature...the more stuff catches fire the hotter the fire gets, the hotter the fire gets, the more stuff catches on fire, heats up the metal, heats up the metal...we are talking incredible temperatures which of course could melt steel...and please...bodies cremated...how about spontaneous combustion where all is left of the body is a small pile of ashes?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I understand what you're saying.

However, in the case of WTC, about 2 weeks after the event, a device was brought in to sample the air and fumes and smoke coming from those hot fires. College professors involved. What they revealed was micro particles of metals, and they only way those particles can be released into the air is if the metals involved are at their boiling point. Yes, boiling point.

So that means that the metals down below were boiling, for about 6 weeks.

In your opinion, do you think wood trim and furniture and plastics could generate such heat?

Do you realize that the medical examiner is on record stating that many of the human bodies he found, the remains, had been essentially vaporized, as though they had been cremated? Do you know the temperature necessary to cremate the human body?

I don't remember the number, but it's very high.

Jetfuel, wood trim, office furnishings and the like CANNOT generate such temperatures.

whipkicktoface.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading up on this 9/11 thing and just following what's going on. I think I should step in with the fire thing. Here's an example. Take a 44 gallon drum. Cut a hole in the bottom. Put a grate a third of the way up. Throw in wood or any fuel and light. Watch the drum glow red. Now cut smaller holes thus increasing the speed of the air flow like a gas torch or a furnace and watch the drum melt. Can it not be said the same principles apply to the fire in the rubble? Correct me if I'm wrong that's just my two cents worth. In saying that it does seem to me some involvement wether it be the knowledge of the pending attacks or anything of the sort would warrant further investigations in honor of those lost. Hope my post makes sense I suck at spell check.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what it takes to prepare a building

[media=]

[/media]

It took many months of pre-weakening and preparation just to collapse a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX. for demolition, and that was done at, or near ground level.

The amazing '9/11' method is so much simpler, isn't it?

All you need is some random damage and random fires, and you'll get the same result!!

No need for precisely timed, carefully placed charges. You don't need months of planning, either. A few hours will suffice.

Sheesh. What a crock...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I certainly think they can. Fires burning for a long time like that don't have a constant temperature...the more stuff catches fire the hotter the fire gets, the hotter the fire gets, the more stuff catches on fire, heats up the metal, heats up the metal...we are talking incredible temperatures which of course could melt steel...and please...bodies cremated...how about spontaneous combustion where all is left of the body is a small pile of ashes?

Are you pulling my leg, or do you really think that? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it not your implication that there exists a detailed study?

Not in the same class as your direct claim that it wasn't. Quibble as much as you like, you made claims about a document you hadn't read and then accused me of exactly what you yourself had just done.
Your question is easily answered. The steel analysed was obviously not the area that had been fully corroded/melted (i.e. impossible since that was where the holes and missing steel existed); it was from the periphery or residual effect of where the thermite contacted the steelwork and did most damage and therefore is found to have experienced lower temperatures. Had the material from the holes and missing steel been tested (you remember all those reports of molten, specifically steel), it may well have been found to have experienced thermite-like temperatures.

I see, it's another of those areas where Q24's imagined technical expertise overrides that of everyone who's actually done any work on the subject. I didn't ask the question to be fobbed off with your personal fantasies, I was hoping for some actual evidence that thermite could have that effect on steel without raising its temperature anywhere near to thermite's reaction temperature. Just heating steel certainly doesn't have that effect, you need the presence of sulphur, so why should the steel have come into contact with the small proportion of sulphur that's in thermite but not with the thermite itself?

As to molten steel, you still have not produced any evidence of temperatures high enough to produce this. All you have is reports from eyewitnesses who would not have been able to distinguish molten steel from any other molten metal.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The amazing '9/11' method is so much simpler, isn't it? All you need is some random damage and random fires, and you'll get the same result!!

Not likely at all. After all, a half of ton of explosive planted in WTC1 in 1993 failed to destroy even one structural column, much less caused its collapse.

No need for precisely timed, carefully placed charges.

How are you going to get 100 workers to spend many months cutting structural columns and placing thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives more than 700 feet above street level and do so without anyone noticing? In fact, how would thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives not detonate after aircraft crashed into the area where 911 conspiracist claimed, explosives were planted? Reality is, there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings during the 911 attacks and no bomb explosions were seen, heard nor detected on seismic monitors. To sum that up, you were simply duped as other 911 conspiracist were duped by that hoaxed video of WTC7.

You don't need months of planning, either. A few hours will suffice.

Where did you get that false idea? It took about half a year to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX for demolition and look what you posted. All you are telling us is that you no nothing about the demolition process. Simply making things up as you go because you have seen too many Hollywood action movies doesn't cut it.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been reading up on this 9/11 thing and just following what's going on. I think I should step in with the fire thing. Here's an example. Take a 44 gallon drum. Cut a hole in the bottom. Put a grate a third of the way up. Throw in wood or any fuel and light. Watch the drum glow red. Now cut smaller holes thus increasing the speed of the air flow like a gas torch or a furnace and watch the drum melt. Can it not be said the same principles apply to the fire in the rubble? Correct me if I'm wrong that's just my two cents worth. In saying that it does seem to me some involvement wether it be the knowledge of the pending attacks or anything of the sort would warrant further investigations in honor of those lost. Hope my post makes sense I suck at spell check.

You might want to read post # 132.

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not likely at all. After all, a half of ton of explosive planted in WTC1 in 1993 failed to destroy even one structural column, much less caused its collapse.

How are you going to get 100 workers to spend many months cutting structural columns and placing thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives more than 700 feet above street level and do so without anyone noticing? In fact, how would thousands and thousands of pounds of explosives not detonate after aircraft crashed into the area where 911 conspiracist claimed, explosives were planted? Reality is, there were no explosives involved in the collapse of the WTC buildings during the 911 attacks and no bomb explosions were seen, heard nor detected on seismic monitors. To sum that up, you were simply duped as other 911 conspiracist were duped by that hoaxed video of WTC7.

Where did you get that false idea? It took about half a year to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX for demolition and look what you posted. All you are telling us is that you no nothing about the demolition process. Simply making things up as you go because you have seen too many Hollywood action movies doesn't cut it.

He was half serious, half sarcastic. You are saying it takes months of planning to properly demolish a building, and he is saying why do all of that, when all you need to do is fly a plane into it, and within a few hours its done. Would seem like a waste of time to do all of that planning to demolish it, right?

Now before you think I agree with him, I am just saying I understand what he is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the iron oxidisation method you would need a lot of rust. Your talking about a ship full there I think it far more like a furnace action then anything but each to there own then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was half serious, half sarcastic. You are saying it takes months of planning to properly demolish a building, and he is saying why do all of that, when all you need to do is fly a plane into it, and within a few hours its done. Would seem like a waste of time to do all of that planning to demolish it, right?

That is right. As it was, fires that resulted from the impacts were responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. No explosive of any kind was used as many 911 conspiracist have claimed and I have consistently told them why. I might add that the aircraft were not flown into the WTC buildings under remote control.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the iron oxidisation method you would need a lot of rust. Your talking about a ship full there I think it far more like a furnace action then anything but each to there own then.

There was a lot of steel lying around for weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So steel girders and swarf is comparable to an entire ships hull of iron particulate. Is that what you are saying. I'm not here to argue. Just trying to get an understanding through all the Miss information etc.

Edited by coldboiled

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So steel girders an swarf is comparable to an entire ships hull or iron particulate. Is that what you are saying.

How many tons of steel are used to construct a typical ship? How many tons of steel were used to construct WTC1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but are you not talking about ships carrying iron ore? Which in that form oxidises far faster then a processed steel beam

I've said my bit and will keep out of it and continue reading. Proven rite or wrong 9/11 deserves further investigation

Edited by coldboiled
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would that be the Edmund Fitzgerald?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but are you not talking about ships carrying iron ore? Which in that form oxidises far faster then a processed steel beam.

There was tons of steel exposed to the elements for weeks. Many people were not aware that you can start fires with ordinary steel wool.

I've said my bit and will keep out of it and continue reading. Proven rite or wrong 9/11 deserves further investigation

What can they uncover after more than 11 years that is going to change anything? In addition, American Airlines and United Airlines have reported the loss of their aircraft during the 911 attacks and we know the United States received many warnings of an impending attack by Muslim terrorist, and some of those warnings included the use of airliners as weapons. Nothing in those warnings, some by Muslim countries, that implicated the US government.

We know that explosives were not used and we know that all four airliners were hijacked by Muslim terrorist. We can add the admissions of Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed regarding their responsibilty in the 911 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the incompetence of a certain few who let this happen and should be. Prosecuted is all I'm saying

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.