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

Waist of time Sky ! Remember theres no place like Home ! No Place like Home. The Skeptics and C/T`s love to real you in ! Time to cut them Loose ! THat Dog dont hunt any more !

We need to move on to Getting or Space program back on track ! Not the Stupidity of this,Afterall ITs all in the way one Looks at things,9/11 was just as it was shown Live on the T.V that Day ! You really have to be a dense person not to see that ! Two Large Aircraft went in,Two Great Towers came down ! Nuff Said ! :tu:

On your Six mate !

It is amazing that skeptics continue to display their total lack of knowledge of the facts, which is how unfounded 911 conspiracies are hatched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing that skeptics continue to display their total lack of knowledge of the facts, which is how unfounded 911 conspiracies are hatched.

I agree. Many of the theories have no bases. But you don't get to belive all are wrong and that you are right "because the government told you so".

Everyone that watched those buildings fall had a question in their head. "How the hell did that just happen?" Everyone did. You just happenned to trust your government enough to believe every story they put out. Understandable.

Others cannot. They've heard about the "Gulf of Tonkin incident". They've heard about "Operation Northwood". And with FOIA they are questioning Pearl Harbor too. Iraq etc, etc....

Governments lie. Do you deny this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Many of the theories have no bases. But you don't get to belive all are wrong and that you are right "because the government told you so".

Not only the government, but many non-government sources as well.

Everyone that watched those buildings fall had a question in their head. "How the hell did that just happen?" Everyone did. You just happenned to trust your government enough to believe every story they put out. Understandable.

Let's take a look back. For an example, skeptics have said that it took explosives to demolish the WTC and that is why they collapse the way they did, but, I have said that explosives are not required, which is why I have posted this video.

Others cannot. They've heard about the "Gulf of Tonkin incident". They've heard about "Operation Northwood".

There was no way the government could have pulled off the 911 operation and not get caught.

And with FOIA they are questioning Pearl Harbor too. Iraq etc, etc....

Governments lie. Do you deny this?

I am well aware that the government covers up things from time to time, and I was part of a coverup regarding recovery efforts of Korean FLT 007, but that coverup was justified considering the Soviets were also looking for the black boxes, but what I am saying is, there was no way the government had planned and carried out the 91f attack, especially when countries around the world had warned the United States that muslim terrorist were planning to carry out such an attack on America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only the government, but many non-government sources as well.

I address this further down.

Let's take a look back. For an example, skeptics have said that it took explosives to demolish the WTC and that is why they collapse the way they did, but, I have said that explosives are not required, which is why I have posted this video.

[media=]

[/media]

The mechanics are the same Sky. Remove a section and the building falls. It's a nice video showing top down demolition using some means besides explosives. One thing you can bank on, they were preped and any resistance was taken out prior to the collapses. That's the one thing you can't say about the twin towers or WTC 7. Which fell like that with no prep. Unless you believe they "were" prepped. But of course you don't. So which is it Sky? You can't have it both ways.

There was no way the government could have pulled off the 911 operation and not get caught.

They have been caught. No one of any import cares. Sucks, but that's the way it is

I am well aware that the government covers up things from time to time, and I was part of a coverup regarding recovery efforts of Korean FLT 007, but that coverup was justified considering the Soviets were also looking for the black boxes, but what I am saying is, there was no way the government had planned and carried out the 91f attack, especially when countries around the world had warned the United States that muslim terrorist were planning to carry out such an attack on America.

Germany "warned" us. By an "informant" named "screwball". I haven't seen anything else. But even so, if so many had been warning us ... and it happened... shouldn't we have been ready for it? And if not, lets say because of rivalry between institutions, than the public reaction has been nothing more than mild. We "should" be outraged.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I

The mechanics are the same Sky. Remove a section and the building falls. It's a nice video showing top down demolition using some means besides explosives. One thing you can bank on, they were preped and any resistance was taken out prior to the collapses.

I have brought up structural pre-weakening before, which is required, to make my point that there was no way to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 wee initiated at the points of aircraft impacts, so what are the chances that explosives were happen to be planted at those exact locations and not result in secondary explosions after the impacts?

That's the one thing you can't say about the twin towers or WTC 7. Which fell like that with no prep. Unless you believe they "were" prepped. But of course you don't. So which is it Sky? You can't have it both ways.

Fire was the means that weakened the steel structures of all three WTC buildings.

They have been caught. No one of any import cares. Sucks, but that's the way it is

Names please? Where was the trial? You cannot consider the captured terrorist because they were not part of our intelligence operations.

Germany "warned" us. By an "informant" named "screwball". I haven't seen anything else. But even so, if so many had been warning us ... and it happened... shouldn't we have been ready for it? And if not, lets say because of rivalry between institutions, than the public reaction has been nothing more than mild. We "should" be outraged.

Other countries in Europe, the Middle East and even in the Far East, were warning the United States, but our intelligence services dropped the ball for which they admitted, but they continued to do so right up to this very day, more than 11 years after the 911 attacks. They continue to make the same old blunders and missteps they were doing before 911. Question is: When will they ever learn from their mistakes?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have brought up structural pre-weakening before, which is required, to make my point that there was no way to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention. The collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 wee initiated at the points of aircraft impacts, so what are the chances that explosives were happen to be planted at those exact locations and not result in secondary explosions after the impacts?

No.. you don't get it Sky. I know you're a propnant for complete collapse by fire, but you're not understanding that in the video you show "all" of those have been prepped. On every floor. No resistance. That's how a demo goes. You are still arguing resistance was taken out at one area of the buildings and they still fell the same way. Can't make it clearer than that.

Fire was the means that weakened the steel structures of all three WTC buildings.

I'm not arguing that.

Names please? Where was the trial? You cannot consider the captured terrorist because they were not part of our intelligence operations.

We wouldn't be talking about this if they wern't caught.

Other countries in Europe, the Middle East and even in the Far East, were warning the United States, but our intelligence services dropped the ball for which they admitted, but they continued to do so right up to this very day, more than 11 years after the 911 attacks. They continue to make the same old blunders and missteps they were doing before 911. Question is: When will they ever learn from their mistakes?

Or punish the people that make them. All in all,I can agree with this.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.. you don't get it Sky. I know you're a propnant for complete collapse by fire, but you're not understanding that in the video you show "all" of those have been prepped. On every floor. No resistance. That's how a demo goes. You are still arguing resistance was taken out at one area of the buildings and they still fell the same way. Can't make it clearer than that.

No resistance??? Look at this photo and tell us why you are incorrect and notice that dust plumes and other debris are actually outpacing the collapse. Question is: how did you NOT notice such resistance?

site1085-20120628-111320.jpg

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good picture of explosive devices at work Sky! :tu:

That is some of that 'evidence' that you are unable to perceive, or should I say acknowledge?

Funny you would answer your own question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good picture of explosive devices at work Sky! :tu:

Goes to show you know nothing about explosions. :no: Demolition experts will disagree with your assessment as well,,,,,,,,,,,in fact, they already have. :yes:

I guess this is your idea of bomb explosions.

http__demolitions.free.fr_%E2%80%A2_Afficher_le_sujet_-_D%C3%A9molition_de_3_tours_R%2B15_%C3%A0_Chalon-sur-Sa%C3%B4ne_%2871%29-20120406-065657.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Many of the theories have no bases. But you don't get to belive all are wrong and that you are right "because the government told you so".

Everyone that watched those buildings fall had a question in their head. "How the hell did that just happen?" Everyone did. You just happenned to trust your government enough to believe every story they put out. Understandable.

Others cannot. They've heard about the "Gulf of Tonkin incident". They've heard about "Operation Northwood". And with FOIA they are questioning Pearl Harbor too. Iraq etc, etc....

Governments lie. Do you deny this?

Yep, and without even an hour of investigation, CNN, FOX ect ect was there with eye witnesses to explain in detail exactly how they fell. That was impressive.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No resistance??? Look at this photo and tell us why you are incorrect and notice that dust plumes and other debris are actually outpacing the collapse. Question is: how did you NOT notice such resistance?

site1085-20120628-111320.jpg

I

They fell at near free fall speed sky. They sure as hell didnt fall as if there was serveral hundreds of thousands of tons of material under them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They fell at near free fall speed sky. They sure as hell didnt fall as if there was serveral hundreds of thousands of tons of material under them.

No, they did not collapse at near free fall speed as the falling dust plumes and debris have proven beyond any doubt. Once again, the dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse. Check out this video on free fall speed and the WTC buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DId you Miss the part where the Aircraft Went into the Building ANd burst into Flames? Flames = Fire= Melting insides= Falling Mass !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DId you Miss the part where the Aircraft Went into the Building ANd burst into Flames? Flames = Fire= Melting insides= Falling Mass !

It is amazing that some have claimed that the molten metal flowing from the corner of WTC2 was molten steel despite the fact the silvery droplets indicated the molten metal was aluminum, not steel, which shouldn't have been a mystery considering that location of WTC2 is where the airframe of United 175 came to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is amazing that some have claimed that the molten metal flowing from the corner of WTC2 was molten steel despite the fact the silvery droplets indicated the molten metal was aluminum, not steel, which shouldn't have been a mystery considering that location of WTC2 is where the airframe of United 175 came to rest.

I've refuted it. I might not have prooven it, but I don't recall you being any part of "that" discussion. Until you want to go back to "that" discussion and provide your case, than you're more than welcome. Untill then...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've refuted it. I might not have prooven it, but I don't recall you being any part of "that" discussion. Until you want to go back to "that" discussion and provide your case, than you're more than welcome. Untill then...............

How could you have refuted it when the molten flow is in fact, molten aluminum? The fact that molten aluminum is flowing from the location where the airframe of United 175 came to rest and the silvery droplets are another clue the flow is aluminum. To further add, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but far too low to melt steel, which would have made it impossible for that flow to have been steel.

I have seen molten aluminum before and in fact, I was near this C-141, tail number; 0253, when this photo was taken. The building in the background is the P-16, jet engine shop, which is where I would be eventually assigned during my employment with Raytheon Aerospace as I was still employed with the Air Force when this photo was taken. A few years later, the Air Force provided me with a hangar (hangar 843) to set up my own airframe shop in which to provide structural support for the jet engine shop. My hangar is located behind the photographer who took this photo and I employed 12 technicians, some of which were electricians, machinist, airframe technicians, two of which I assigned to P-16 for direct support, and another to the composite shop and a painter.

650253_explosion_1_07_Oct_1993.jpg

This harden aluminum droplet came from the left wing.

650253_blob_david_giancaspro.jpg

Now, let's take another look at the molten flow from WTC2 and notice the silvery droplets and understand that the airframe of United 175 is sitting above the molten flow.

moltenal2.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How could you have refuted it when the molten flow is in fact, molten aluminum? The fact that molten aluminum is flowing from the location where the airframe of United 175 came to rest and the silvery droplets are another clue the flow is aluminum. To further add, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, but far too low to melt steel, which would have made it impossible for that flow to have been steel.

I have seen molten aluminum before and in fact, I was near this C-141, tail number; 0253, when this photo was taken. The building in the background is the P-16, jet engine shop, which is where I would be eventually assigned during my employment with Raytheon Aerospace as I was still employed with the Air Force when this photo was taken. A few years later, the Air Force provided me with a hangar (hangar 843) to set up my own airframe shop in which to provide structural support for the jet engine shop. My hangar is located behind the photographer who took this photo and I employed 12 technicians, some of which were electricians, machinist, airframe technicians, two of which I assigned to P-16 for direct support, and another to the composite shop and a painter.

650253_explosion_1_07_Oct_1993.jpg

This harden aluminum droplet came from the left wing.

650253_blob_david_giancaspro.jpg

Now, let's take another look at the molten flow from WTC2 and notice the silvery droplets and understand that the airframe of United 175 is sitting above the molten flow.

moltenal2.jpg

Shows a photo of a plane on fire, a piece of aluminium and voila, it's aluminium.

Even though from the photo above, it is showing none of the characteristics of aluminium. Unless you believe in alchemy of some description?? lol

Oh wait a minute, I forgot, it's aluminium mixed with other materials which makes it glow like that??

Although we are still waiting on you to name the many materials it mixed with to create this new stylee aluminium??

Maybe it's Aluminium missed with SunnyD that makes it look exactly like molten steel and also made the temperatures appear over 1200 degrees C according to your colour chart. lol

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Shows a photo of a plane on fire, a piece of aluminium and voila, it's aluminium.

After all, the airframe of United 175 was constructed of aluminum as well, not to mention the facade of the WTC towers.

Even though from the photo above, it is showing none of the characteristics of aluminium. Unless you believe in alchemy of some description??

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the silvery droplets are by no means, steel.

Oh wait a minute, I forgot, it's aluminium mixed with other materials which makes it glow like that??

That's right!! Cabin contents of the airliners, and from within the WTC buildings would have been mixed with the molten aluminum and result in the change of color.

Although we are still waiting on you to name the many materials it mixed with to create this new stylee aluminium??

Office furniture, materials from passenger seats, fiberglass, carpets, plastics,honeycomb adhesives and sealants used in aircraft construction, lubrication grease, batteries, etc.

Maybe it's Aluminium missed with SunnyD that makes it look exactly like molten steel and also made the temperatures appear over 1200 degrees C according to your colour chart

The droplets alone debunks the molten steel theory.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its quite clear from this video that the towers collapse from the floor level into itself and not as I previously thought from the pancake effect from the top level as a result of the plane crash damage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Its quite clear from this video that the towers collapse from the floor level into itself and not as I previously thought from the pancake effect from the top level as a result of the plane crash damage

Let's take another look.

[media=]

[/media]

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've refuted it. I might not have prooven it, but I don't recall you being any part of "that" discussion. Until you want to go back to "that" discussion and provide your case, than you're more than welcome. Untill then...............

Lead the way. I have something to prove. BTW, look at the trajectory of United 175 and notice the location of WTC2 where the molten aluminum was flowing from. The molten aluminum was flowing from the exact location in the corner of WTC2 where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest. The aluminum airframe was exposed to temperatures high enough to melt aluminum and weaken structural steel columns as indicated by the bowing and buckling of WTC2 prior to its collapse.

021104-13Bb.gif2002-1029_NYTimes-DataTrove-08_150.gif

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its quite clear from this video that the towers collapse from the floor level into itself and not as I previously thought from the pancake effect from the top level as a result of the plane crash damage

Are you seriously suggesting that the collapse on both WTC towers initiated from the ground floor instead of at the collapse zones?

If so, then I would really like to see your proof, as all visual records clearly shows collapse initiation at the impact zone.

This ought to be entertaining....I'm predicting a video of the collapse viewed upside down, but considering you are probably the first to suggest such a theory on this board, I'm not expecting much....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After all, the airframe of United 175 was constructed of aluminum as well, not to mention the facade of the WTC towers.
Here we go your Wurzel Gummage arguments. Its clear you are having a mental breakdown of some description as nobody is arguing or denying that the plane and façade was molten aluminium. You are arguing a point no one has made and stating the obvious but here is your logic....

The Plane & Façade are made of aluminium, so therefore the molten metal is aluminium.

Is no different to saying.....

The WTC are made of Steel, so therefore the molten metal is Steel.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the silvery droplets are by no means, steel.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the silvery droplets are by no means, aluminium.
That's right!! Cabin contents of the airliners, and from within the WTC buildings would have been mixed with the molten aluminum and result in the change of color.
Sorry but you don't just mixed in random materials found on a plane which automatically changes the colour of aluminium. You said there were lots of things which could change the colour, but you have invented facts and evidence which only exist in your head because out of all of these things, you haven't been able to point to a single one which would change the colour. :blink: lol

Pathetic really. lol

Office furniture, materials from passenger seats, fiberglass, carpets, plastics,honeycomb adhesives and sealants used in aircraft construction, lubrication grease, batteries, etc.

You sound like the wicked witch in a pantomime. Telling the audience what goes into their potion to create some magic, or in this case, glowing aluminium.

Witch: "I need a potion to create glowing aluminium. I'm going to need some aluminium of course."

Puts aluminium in her boiling hot cauldron and pulls out her book of magic spells and flicks through the pages..

Witch: "Glowing aluminium...Glowing aluminium...Glowing aluminium...ah ha!! Here it is! I need some random office furniture."

Chucks it in the pot.

Witch: "One back of a passenger seat. 1 square foot of fiberglass. 1 square metre of carpet. A pinch of plastic"

Chucks it in the pot.

Witch: "Some honeycomb adhesives...now where did I put that...Oh! There you are."

Chucks it in the pot.

Witch: "Some sealants used in aircraft construction, a tube of lubrication grease and a 12V car battery"

The witch stirs the bubbling cauldron and reads the magic spell..

Witch: "Hocus pocus Hocus flow, make the aluminium glow!"

And in a puff of smoke, there was aluminium glowing bright orange which looked like it was over 1200C but wasn't cause the witches cauldron didn't have Office furniture, materials from passenger seats, fiberglass, carpets, plastics, honeycomb adhesives and sealants used in aircraft construction, lubrication grease, batteries, etc to help it get to 1200C. lol

The droplets alone debunks the molten steel theory.
Of course it does with your magic glowing aluminium. Seeing as you like spam and posting stuff we have all see before, here is a panto witch trying out your magic spell. lol

Arrggh...what a shame it didn't work, maybe he failed because he didn't say the magic words hey Skyeagle? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go your Wurzel Gummage arguments. Its clear you are having a mental breakdown of some description as nobody is arguing or denying that the plane and façade was molten aluminium.

However, temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum but too low to melt steel.

The Plane & Façade are made of aluminium, so therefore the molten metal is aluminium.

Since the temperatures were high enough to melt aluminum, that is correct, because temperatures were far too low to melt steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Arrggh...what a shame it didn't work, maybe he failed because he didn't say the magic words hey Skyeagle? lol

Have him mix contents found in the cabin of airliners and inside office buildings and see what happens to the color. Notice the color in the cup at time line 2:02. and notice the silvery droplets, which is exactly what is depicted falling from WTC2.

Molten Aluminum

The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Molten Metal

Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.

The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"

First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.

I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [
]

Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."

If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.

Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?

The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.

The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8

Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.

Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.

The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.

THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.

Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.

I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.

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

Aluminum Temperature Chart

htchar1.gif

Molten Aluminum

alum_casting_equipment.jpg

molten.jpg

AD20110424343532-Molten%20aluminum.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

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.