WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

At least you have a sense of humor Sky.

Let's just call it what it is; Reality!

[DONTEATUS]

Yes Indeed Skyeagle has a Humor,and a few hours under his belt with the facts ! At least we can know this ! ITs not B.S. We need more like this man in here !

[W Tell]

Question is: Did they attribute the sound of explosions to crashing elevators? Yes, or no.

To tell you the truth, I don't know of anyone disscussing them except on this site. It has been brought up as an alternative to bombs in videos that do produce a sound like an explosion. I'll give it the credit it's and due and say "maybe". But in all of the video I've watched, I've seen many people say they heard bombs going off... but I've yet to hear someone say they heard an elevator crash.

My point is..How can we hear anything over the collapse? If the sounds in the audio before the buildings fell where actually elevators rather than bombs then why didn't we hear any of the rest of the elevators fall creating a sound like a bomb when the buildings fell?

Did they all fall before the collapse? Or was the collapse so damn loud you couldn't hear them?

[DONTEATUS]

ITs that old saying,"If a tree Falls in the Woods Is there BEar **** around it ?"

Well sorta Like that anywho ! But Sky`s right ! THe more people make up tales of this event THe More trash we must sift thru !

Remember Gravity is all a made up Law of the Universe, ANd We All must Suck really a lot to cause those Twin Towers to come Falling Down after Two Mega-Jets Hit them !

[Stundie]

Hilarious...You have resorted to posting a debunking website as evidence....lol

Well lets do some debunking and have a laugh at both yours and the websites logic shall we??

I can agree that there is much evidence and here's the proof! Read this report very carefully and understand why the molten flow was aluminum.

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 facade of each Twin Tower.

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.

So far the argument is that there are 2 sources of aluminium? lol

Did you forget that I am not disagreeing that there are 2 source of aluminium again with your Wurzel Gummage type tactics. lol

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.

Did you notice those words I highlighted for you?? lol

Only in the world of Skyeagle and debunking can the words possibly and suggest equal unequivocal evidence...hahahahaha!!

What have I been saying all along?

On this post, the façade and plane were aluminium so therefore it is proof because FEMA and the NIST suggest that it is possibly aluminium.

Do you not realise how dumb your argument is?? lol I don't think you do. lol

continue:

What have I said about molten aluminum mixing with contents within the cabin of United 175 and inside WTC2?

And what as the video I shown you about this said theory?? lol

Seeing as you like giving hints, I'll give you one. It shows you, you are wrong. lol

continue:

(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.

Based on the known properties of molten aluminum in the presence of hydrated oxides in concrete, gypsum and rust we propose the following sequence of events involving aluminum reactions, brought down the Twin Towers on 9-11:

 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.

Now, what have I said about components of thermite present at ground zero that had nothing to do with planted thermite? Furthermore, I have said that hearing the sounds of explosions does not automatically attribute those sounds to bomb explosions?

Well you originally said that thermite was expected about a year and half ago, then you say that it was not found. And with highlighted bit in red....lol You are now jumping back on the "thermite would have naturally occurred because the ingredients were there" bandwagon, even though you said yourself, you don't chuck flour, eggs milk and sugar into an oven and expect a cake.

Highlighting the general numb-skullery in debunking logic. Jumping about on what you believe. lol When it suits you, you believe it and if it doesn't, then you ignore or deny it, even if it means you contradicting yourself multiple times over. I mean you never told us whether there was "expected thermite" or whether there was no thermite. Just so we can clarify and point and laugh as you claim there was no thermite......AGAIN lol

This is why I can't take what you say seriously....lol

continue:

Now, do you know what this is? Were you aware that United 175 carried many of these oxygen generators when it slammed into WTC2?

Now, you know why this report and others, have mentioned the molten metal as aluminum among many reasons.

Now, are you aware what this is?

Are you aware that United 175 carried many of these sandwiches when it slammed into WTC2?

Didn't you know that aluminium + sandwich = thermite! lol

Were you also aware that like my sandwich argument above, this whole of your post is again, completely pointless, irrelevant and moronic?

Probably not! lol

[skyeagle409]

Hilarious...You have resorted to posting a debunking website as evidence....

You cannot rewrite the laws of physics from the comfort of your keyboard. You should know that!

[Stundie]

Which is what can also be read here:

The NY Times article

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."

http://www.nytimes.c...tml?ei=5007&en=

a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

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 south tower'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 jet'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 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...archives/2002/0

The words you have bolded highlight the problem of your so called evidence. hahahaha!!!

[skyeagle409]

To tell you the truth, I don't know of anyone disscussing them except on this site. It has been brought up as an alternative to bombs in videos that do produce a sound like an explosion.

I have also brought up alternatives as well, and have done so on a number of occasions. On another note, New York City is known for its electrical and manhole explosions, but nothing they heard had anything to do with bombs.

I'll give it the credit it's and due and say "maybe". But in all of the video I've watched, I've seen many people say they heard bombs going off... but I've yet to hear someone say they heard an elevator crash.

As I have posted, people who thought they heard the sound of bombs later attributed the sounds to something else other than bombs, and falling elevators were among the explanations.

My point is..How can we hear anything over the collapse?

Not difficult at all. Check out this video and see if you can hear the sound of explosions as the building collapses.

Now, the collapse of WTC2.

There is no sound of explosions from WTC2 as the building collapses.

If the sounds in the audio before the buildings fell where actually elevators rather than bombs then why didn't we hear any of the rest of the elevators fall creating a sound like a bomb when the buildings fell?

Did they all fall before the collapse? Or was the collapse so damn loud you couldn't hear them?

The elevators in question fell after the WTC tower was struck by the B-767, not during the collapse. The elevators feel after the aircraft cut the elevator support cables.

[skyeagle409]

The words you have bolded highlight the problem of your so called evidence.

Bolded words of an incident where you have failed to refute with evidence.

[Stundie]

Bolded words of an incident where you have failed to refute with evidence.

You seem to be very confused......lol

You think probably and apparently is evidence...lol

And you seem to have forgotten it has been refuted by the fact it looks exactly like molten steel.

[skyeagle409]

You seem to be very confused......lol

You think probably and apparently is evidence...lol

And you seem to have forgotten it has been refuted by the fact it looks exactly like molten steel.

Molten Aluminum

Apparently, the photo in the lower right corner of that photo depicts molten aluminum, which is the exactly location where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest. Here's a better photo and notice the silvery aluminum droplets on the lower portion of this photo.

Now,let's take another look at that corner of WTC2 from where the molten aluminum is flowing from.

Molten aluminum is flowing from the wreckage exit point at that particular corner of WTC2. When United 175 slammed into WTC2 and entered into the corner, any planted explosions would have been detonated, yet there weree no secondary explosions when United 175 collided with WTC2. Secondly, any thermite planted on the structure of WTC2 at that location would have been rendered ineffective by the collision.

Tons of aluminum from the airframe of United 175 remained within that corner of WTC2 where it was exposed to temperatures high enough to melt aluminum, but far too low to melt steel.

Edited May 27, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

You cannot rewrite the laws of physics from the comfort of your keyboard. You should know that!

Sorry but I'm not the one suggesting that this upper block crushed the lower block, which as we see in the video was not the case. You should know that! lol

The only one rewriting physics are debunkers using a upper block V lower floor model because if they used a upper block V lower block or even a upper floor V lower floor model, their model fails.

Although I'm interested in this idea of a one sided debris cushion middle block/floors model you debunkers are sort of proposing. lol

[skyeagle409]

Sorry but I'm not the one suggesting that this upper block crushed the lower block, which as we see in the video was not the case. You should know that!

A floor below the upper block was unable to arrest the falling upper block mass and as a result, that floor became entangled with the upper block mass, which proceeded to collapse to the next lower floor and each time a lower floor failed, the mass increased. Remember, the upper block was not a solid block of concrete and in addition, the floors tied the inner core with the outer parameter of the WTC towers.

Edited May 29, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Molten Aluminum

Nice dark conditions and yet we can see the watery viscosity of the molten aluminium at these over 1200C is not a match for what we saw at the WTC. It was quite gloopy....lol

Apparently, the photo in the lower right corner of that photo depicts molten aluminum, which is the exactly location where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest.

Evidently, the photo in the lower right corner of that photo depicts molten steel, which is the exactly location where a steel beam is located after being exposed by the exit wound of a plane.

Here's a better photo and notice the silvery aluminum droplets on the lower portion of this photo.

Notice how long it is taking to cool down after leaving the source, more evidence in the favour because the behaviour of molten steel retains heat better than aluminium which isn't very good. If you doubt that then go and melt the same volume of steel and aluminium at 1200c, monitor the temp of the aluminium and as soon as it cooled to a safe temp to pick up, go pick up the steel. If you knew anything about metals, you would know that is why it is not aluminium.

Notice how steely looking these imaginary pixels look, so steely looking that I can detect them free falling on a poor pixel youtube definition screen and which is FACTS AND EVIDENCE that shows you that it is not aluminium. lol

Now,let's take another look at that corner of WTC2 from where the molten aluminum is flowing from.

Molten aluminum is flowing from the wreckage exit point at that particular corner of WTC2. When United 175 slammed into WTC2 and entered into the corner, any planted explosions would have been detonated, yet there were no secondary explosions when United 175 collided with WTC2. Secondly, any thermite planted on the structure of WTC2 at that location would have been rendered ineffective by the collision.

Molten steel is flowing from the wreckage exit point at that particular corner of WTC2 where a steel beam was located. When United 175 slammed into WTC2 and entered into the corner, any planted explosions, some might have been detonated and therefore done there job a bit early some might not so that the explosives elsewhere would still survive, especially away from the impact zone. Thermite planted on the structure of WTC2 at that location would not have been rendered ineffective by the collision as it plane hitting and 1200C is not hot enough. Apparently,(Which is now evidence...lol) when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it still doesn't ignite as ignition has to be almost white hot.

Tons of aluminum from the airframe of United 175 remained within that corner of WTC2 where it was exposed to temperatures high enough to melt aluminum, but far too low to melt steel.

Even more steel and how can the temps be too low to melt steel when to get aluminium to glow like that, it has to be at least 1200C as the chart you keep posting clearly states.

Still waiting for you to tell us the magic ingredient which make aluminium on glow bright orange at temps much lower than 1200C?

My money is still on it being aluminium and Sunny D which makes it glow bright orange at much lower temperatures. Maybe these guys should have tried my method instead of yours as shown here...

And my SunnyD Aluminium debunks your carpet, sandwich aluminium and other crapola arguments. lol

[Stundie]

A floor below the upper block was unable to arrest the falling upper block mass and as a result, that floor became entangled with the upper block mass, which proceeded to collapse to the next lower floor and each time a lower floor failed, the mass increased. Remember, the upper block was not a solid block of concrete and in addition, the floors tied the inner core with the outer parameter of the WTC towers.

Hilarious...you did exactly what I said...lol

The only one rewriting physics are debunkers using a upper block V lower floor model because if they used a upper block V lower block or even a upper floor V lower floor model, their model fails.

And you know this single floor in the lower block of your hilariously rewriting the laws of physics is held up and supported by what exactly?? lol

Nothing at all as you appear to be suggesting or another 92 fricking floors.

Create a fair model and your posts might actually not be pointless, irrelevant and moronic anymore...lol

[skyeagle409]

And my SunnyD Aluminium debunks your carpet, sandwich aluminium and other crapola arguments.

Nice dark conditions and yet we can see the watery viscosity of the molten aluminium at these over 1200C is not a match for what we saw at the WTC. It was quite gloopy...

Still waiting for you to tell us the magic ingredient which make aluminium on glow bright orange at temps much lower than 1200C?

Simple. Higher temperature and contents from within United 175, including the oxygen generators, seat cushion, plastics and fiberglass, and contents within WTC2.

And my SunnyD Aluminium debunks your carpet, sandwich aluminium and other crapola arguments. lol

No it doesn't because at its lower melting point aluminum is silvery, however, at higher temperatures, aluminum glows. Let's do a review.

Molten Aluminum Chart

Using the temperature chart, provide us with the temperature levels of molten aluminum in the following photos.

Molten Aluminum

It is very clear that the molten aluminum is by no means, silvery in color. What you need to understand it that at its initial melting point, aluminum is silvery in color, but at higher temperatures, aluminum will glow at a variety of colors and that depends on its temperature level

Edited May 30, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it still doesn't ignite as ignition has to be almost white hot.

Apparently, any planted explosives and even thermite would not have survived the impact of United 175 at that corner of WTC2. BTW, you don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building, which is another hint that thermite was not responsible for the flow, but the wreckage from United 175 because the point of the molten flow is where the main wreckage of United 175 came to rest.

[skyeagle409]

Hilarious...you did exactly what I said..

What is hiliarious is your lack of understanding on the laws of physics.

[DONTEATUS]

I second that Skyeagle !

[skyeagle409]

Even more steel and how can the temps be too low to melt steel when to get aluminium to glow like that, it has to be at least 1200C as the chart you keep posting clearly states.

Remember, contents from within the cabin and cargo hold of United 175, not to mention the oxygen generators, and contents within WTC2, would have been mixed with molten aluminum and once again, the molten aluminum is flowing from the corner where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 was exposed to temperatures above its melting point.

Molten Metal

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

[skyeagle409]

I second that Skyeagle !

I heard that!!

[EzekieltheGreat]

This is such nonsense, it's nonsense how this is still even being discussed, 9/11 was obviously an inside job by the government of the USA

[Sweetpumper]

9/11 was obviously an inside job by the government of the USA

Obviously.

[skyeagle409]

This is such nonsense, it's nonsense how this is still even being discussed, 9/11 was obviously an inside job by the government of the USA

Not possible at all. The government couldn't even keep the Watergate scandal a secret and it has been over 11 years since the 911 attacks and yet, not one shred of evidence has surfaced. Now, where's your evidence that the U.S. government was behind the 911 attacks?

Furthermore, the Boeing Aircraft Company has said that its aircraft were not designed to fly under remote control, (the B-767 and the B-757 are not fly-by-wire aircraft) and that American Airlines and United Airlines confirmed the loss of their aircraft during the 911 attacks, so with the announcements from American Airlines and United Airlines confirming the aircraft was their aircraft, why did 911 conspiracist continue to insist the aircraft were government-modified drones? The altitude flight data provide beyond a doubt the aircraft were not flown under remote control, so what was the source of the false story that the aircraft were flown under remote control?

911 conspiracist continue to claim that turning off the aircraft transponders made the airliners invisible, which was false to begin with because the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar, so once again, clear-cut examples where 911 conspiracist have been spreading disinformation and misinformation.

Edited May 30, 2013 by skyeagle409

[EzekieltheGreat]

911 conspiracist continue to claim that turning off the aircraft transponders made the airliners invisible, which was false to begin with because the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar, so once again, clear-cut examples where 911 conspiracist have been spreading disinformation and misinformation.

If they were still visible on radar they would have been caught