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

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

Sorry but no cigar!

No it doesn't because at its lower melting point aluminum is silvery, however, at higher temperatures, aluminum glows.
But you said the temperature were not high enough to melt steel and now you are saying that temperatures were much higher than you originally projected once it had been pointed out to you that the colour of the metal shows us temperatures of at least 1200C minimum. lol
Let's do a review.

Molten Aluminum Chart

htchar1.gif

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

Molten Aluminum

alum_casting_equipment.jpg

Well considering that most of that it is orange, I would say that the temp is around 930c.

However, there is a problem. There is a section of the aluminium as it is being pour from the back which shows the metal to be white hot, yet look how quickly the colour changes in the vat/container because it loses it's heat very quickly.

This is why we know that the metal in the WTC was not aluminium because that doesn't exhibit that behaviour. lol

Simples...;) lol

lg_molten-lg.jpg

It is very clear that the molten aluminum is by no means, silvery in color.

That is because it is not in daylight conditions, its inside a building which doesn't have much natural light. If it was outside, chances are the metal would be silvery and not as orange as it appears on here.
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
No, I understand that perfectly, what you do not understand is that the metal from the WTC is gloopy, so therefore it cannot be aluminium because at these temperatures, it wouldn't be gloopy.

Another reason why it isn't aluminium is because the metal retains its heat. lol

2 obvious reasons why it isn't aluminium which you would know if you knew anything about metals, which you clearly don't. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, any planted explosives and even thermite would not have survived the impact of United 175 at that corner of WTC2.

Apparently you do not know much do you?? lol
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.
You don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building, which is another hint that thermite was responsible for the flow because the point of the molten flow is where the steel was exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

The last picture in your post 1825 above shows clearly that the collapse of the towers was really an explosion of the towers. That picture clearly shows that whatever brought down the tower, it WAS NOT jetfuel and gravity.

That is an explosion, and anybody that claims otherwise is fooling himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you said the temperature were not high enough to melt steel...

That's right.

...and now you are saying that temperatures were much higher than you originally projected...once it had been pointed out to you that the colour of the metal shows us temperatures of at least 1200C minimum.

Well considering that most of that it is orange, I would say that the temp is around 930c.

Okay, let's take a look here.

930 degrees C. = 1706 degrees F.

Which is far below the melting point of steel. As proof, what is the melting point of steel. I might add that the silvery color indicates the lower end of the melting point of aluminum?

However, there is a problem. There is a section of the aluminium as it is being pour from the back which shows the metal to be white hot, yet look how quickly the colour changes in the vat/container because it loses it's heat very quickly.

The molten flowing from WTC2 was losing heat quickly as well, which can be determined by the fact the molten flow is turning into silvery droplets as it cools.

Moltenal.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you do not know much do you??

Of course I do. The collision was so violent that it knocked off fire protection from the steel columns.

You don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building,...

No you don't, which slams the door on claims that molten flow is steel. The molten aluminum is flowing ONLY from the location where much of the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest, which was exposed to temperatures above its melting point but far too low to melt steel.

...which is another hint that thermite was responsible for the flow because the point of the molten flow is where the steel was exposed.

Impossible, simply because the location of the flow of molten aluminum is exactly where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest and the silvery droplets seen in videos and photos are indicative of molten aluminum, not steel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last picture in your post 1825 above shows clearly that the collapse of the towers was really an explosion of the towers.

Nope, that is not the case! No sound of explosions were heard on audio nor seen on video, nor detected on seismic monitors as that building collapsed, so by that very fact, we can safely dismiss the use of explosives. To further add, no evidence of explosives were found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. Question is; where did 911 conspiracist get the idea that explosives were used when there is not one shred of evidence of explosives?

That picture clearly shows that whatever brought down the tower, it WAS NOT jetfuel and gravity.

The fuel got the balling rolling, which ignited other objects inside the WTC building and they raised temperatures high enough to weaken steel to the point of collapse, which were already carrying redistributed structural loads after the collision and the rest is now history. No explosives were required.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A

You don't see molten metal flowing other locations on WTC2 building, which is another hint that thermite was responsible for the flow because the point of the molten flow is where the steel was exposed.

Where the steel was exposed to temperatures high enough to weaken steel. I might add that the location where the molten aluminum is flowing from is where the landing gear, part of the engine and fuselage had exited WTC2.

525px-World_Trade_Center%2C_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg.png

We know that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings because the buildings buckled in the moments before they collapsed, which is a prime indicator that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of WTC1,WTC2, WTC7 and the internal structural collapse of WTC5.

Now, we can take a look at where the collapse of the two WTC towers originated, which of course, is where the aircraft collisions occurred.

800px-World_Trade_Center_9-11_Attacks_Illustration_with_Vertical_Impact_Locations.svg.png

Since the collisions were extremely violent, planted explosives or thermite would have been rendered useless. There were no secondary bomb explosions nor evidence of thermite at the locations where WTC1 and WTC2 were struck by B-767s.

"Melted" Steel

CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide ToFireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will never understand Skyeagle ! ITs all about the mass, the math the physics ! Nothing more, Nothing Less ! A real mess I would say ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been recently listening to the program "The Atheist experience" on Youtube, and what struck me is the simllarity between Christian bible-thumping boneheads and 911 conspiracy nuts.

Like the former, the latter seem completely resistant to logical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method. Instead they pick and choose from whatever available source whatever convenient snippets they can find to cling to their faith.

So... is 911 trootherism a religion substitute? From a psychological point of view, I would say yes.

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will never understand Skyeagle ! ITs all about the mass, the math the physics ! Nothing more, Nothing Less ! A real mess I would say ! :tu:

It is amazing that despite the huge amount of destruction those airliners caused, they think that explosives would have remained firmly attached to the steel columns and despite the fact that no evidence of explosives was found.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-B6c6xxXug[/media]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kVg9iaDdE0

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't make any difference because no evidence of explosives were found nor recovered by clean-up crews at ground zero anyway.

It is still evidence, period.

Removal of evidence is a crime, period.

If you sought the truth, this crime would bother you. .

You say it wouldn't make any difference to have had this evidence.

So the removal of some evidence is not a crime? Only removing evidence deemed to be relevant is a crime!!

Or perhaps it's just used as a lame excuse?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still evidence, period.

Your remark is false, and you know it. :yes:

Removal of evidence is a crime, period.

Evidence for what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence for what?

Hmm..maybe for THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE COLLAPSES

Heard about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm..maybe for THEIR INVESTIGATION OF THE COLLAPSES

Heard about it?

Since it was evident there was no evidence of explosives during the collapse of the WTC buildings nor during clean-up operations, there was no need to look for something they knew wasn't there. Add to the fact that investigators knew that temperatures were high enough to weaken the remaining steel structures within the WTC buildings, which were already carrying additional and redistributed structural loads after the impacts, and yes, even WTC7 suffered impact damage as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it was evident there was no evidence of explosives during the collapse of the WTC buildings nor during clean-up operations, there was no need to look for something they knew wasn't there. Add to the fact that investigators knew that temperatures were high enough to weaken the remaining steel structures within the WTC buildings, which were already carrying additional and redistributed structural loads after the impacts, and yes, even WTC7 suffered impact damage as well.

So that's a proper, thorough investigation to you?

Right!

They saw no evidence of explosives being used in the collapses before they started the investigation...is that right?

And they found no evidence of explosives during their subsequent investigation...right?

Who cares if a lot of evidence was missing. they had enough..right?

Amazing....

It doesn't matter how "evident" anything looks like, ALL the evidence must be taken into account, and thoroughly examined.

You can't make excuses for removing ANY OF IT prior to the investigation, period.

Edited by turbonium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHat part of "No Evidence" Is getting past you Turbo ? DId you watch the Two Aircraft Fly into the Twin Towers? :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHat part of "No Evidence" Is getting past you Turbo ? DId you watch the Two Aircraft Fly into the Twin Towers? :tu:

The part removed illegally, which got past everybody. Do you know about that, or pretend it's all fine and dandy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The part removed illegally, which got past everybody. Do you know about that, or pretend it's all fine and dandy?

There was no evidence of explosives at ground zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no evidence of explosives at ground zero.

Don't you mean the evidence that wasn't already removed illegally?

That evidence isn't needed, of course.

Fine and dandy, all done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you mean the evidence that wasn't already removed illegally?

There was no way that evidence of explosives could have been removed illegally because the explosive evidence would have been evident all over ground zero. In other words, clean-up crews would have had a difficult time avoiding any explosive evidence.

There was never evidence of explosives because bombs make a lot of noise. In Vietnam, we could hear bomb explosions from B-52 strikes from many miles away and yet there were videos within close proximity of the WTC buildings as they collapsed and there was not one sound of a bomb explosion as they fell.

Question is; How many people were responsible for fabricating false stories that explosives were used to demolish the WTC buildings and do so without a shred of evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle do you remember that Old Saying "It all was Lost in the Grey matter" ? THese C.T`s have no grey matter ! :tu:

On your Six ! :gun:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Skyeagle do you remember that Old Saying "It all was Lost in the Grey matter" ? THese C.T`s have no grey matter ! :tu:

On your Six ! :gun:

It is amazing that there are those who complain about the lack of videos at the Pentagon, but how many videos are normally available after an aircraft accident? There are a number of means available other than videos the NTSB obtains in order to make determinations. There were no videos when PSA 1771 crashed yet there was no problem identifying the aircraft as Flight 1771 despite the fact the aircraft was shattered into thousands of small pieces.

There's the claim that bombs were used despite the fact that no evidence of bombs was found. The way a building collapsed cannot be used as evidence that bombs were responsible for the collapse especially in the absence of bomb explosions and lack of bomb-making hardware within the rubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so I guess there is somewhat of a price to pay for not owning a Television...but I had no idea...seriously...how can I be THAT out of the loop...I had no idea that they were rebuilding a tower on the One World Trade Center site...much less that it was almost finished...life happens in a blurrr you know?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so I guess there is somewhat of a price to pay for not owning a Television...but I had no idea...seriously...how can I be THAT out of the loop...I had no idea that they were rebuilding a tower on the One World Trade Center site...much less that it was almost finished...life happens in a blurrr you know?

Here are some links to the One World Trade Center.

798px-One_WTC_construction_16_June_2013.JPG

Photo taken on June 16, 2013

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/index.html

http://onewtc.com/gallery-images/final-section-of-spire-installed-to-achieve-ultimate-height-of-1776-ft-image-4

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/live-camera.html

http://www.911memorial.org/

This will be the new World Trade Center upon completion.

cn_image.size.world-trade-center-01-h670.jpg

cn_image_2.size.world-trade-center-03-h670x773.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's totally awesome. I just got an email from someone today with some of those pics. Thanks.

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.