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

IF aluminum were boiling down below...
If you think there was any boiling metal, you're in a minority of one.
What advantage would there be to using aluminum over steel in such an application?
What advantage is there in arguing with someone who denies accepted facts?
You never did answer my question earlier as to why YOUR judgement in such matters is greater than, superior to, the judgment of Tully and Loizeaux?

You never answered my question as to how they could identify a molten metal. If you can't explain that, then their judgement is indeed no better than mine.

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense? Apparently, I have the reports of buckling regarding the WTC buildings and have posted those reports, so your comment is moot by that very fact. Should I repost those reports you claim is nonsense?.

Apparently, you are unaware of what has already been posted in regards to the buckling included close-up video and photos of the WTC buildings buckling just before they collapsed and I posted those reports as well and look what you posted. Check it out.

If these cops knew collapse was imminent, they must have warned the firehalls, fire chiefs, to evacuate immediately, right?

So did they?

No.

And why not?

Were they all morons? No.

Were they all evil? No.

Was it just to back up the official story? Seems to be.

No other option makes any sense, imo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Windsor building didn't have a total collapse, with far worse fires,

Do your homework. The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed.

...It still didn't come down fully like the towers and WTC 7 did.

The only thing left standing of the Windsor building was the concrete core. Check it out.

The Windsor Building Fire

Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away. The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.

madrid.jpg

What you see above is the concrete reinforced core. What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.

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

The steel structure collapsed into the heap of rubble and all that is left standing is a concrete core and the amazing thing about that is, the Windsor building wasn't struck by a B-767 when the steel structure collapsed due to fire.

So once again, you have broadcasted your lack of knowledge for all to see.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these cops knew collapse was imminent, they must have warned the firehalls, fire chiefs, to evacuate immediately, right?

I guess reality left you out in the cold because everyone else were aware of those warnings by firefighters and the police in the helicopters, and of course, there were photos and videos of the buckling as well and look what you posted!.

What better way to reveal your lack of knowledge than to allow you to do it for us.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these cops knew collapse was imminent, they must have warned the firehalls, fire chiefs, to evacuate immediately, right?

So did they?

No.

You be the judge.

* The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning

* Guiliani and the WTC Warning

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower. Approximately ten minutes after that, we had a collapse of the south tower, and we were sort of blown up against the wall in the lobby of the north tower, and we gathered together those of us who were still able to."

Callan's warnings about the north tower, WTC 1, reached the Office of Emergency Management, OEM. Other people learned from OEM that the WTC buildings were going to collapse. EMT Richard Zarrillo was told to deliver the message. In an Oct 25, 2001 interview Zarrillo explianed, "I said the buildings are going to collapse; we need to evac everybody out. With a very confused look he said who told you that? I said I was just with John at OEM. OEM says the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get out. ... I said, listen, I was just at OEM. The message I was given was that the buildings are going to collapse; we need to get our people out. At that moment, this thunderous, rolling roar came down and that's when the building came down, the first tower came down." 9110161.PDF http://nistreview.org/histories.php

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

So once again, you have broadcasted your lack of knowledge on the WTC warnings among many other things.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your homework. The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed.

The only thing left standing of the Windsor building was the concrete core.

Which means there's not a total collapse, even with a concrete core, Same as a steel core.

You try to compare Windsor's thin steel to WTC's thick structural steel, which is utter nonsense. All you say is its "steel structure" collapsed, and you think that applies to WTC steel??

A thin steel structure is not the same. So get real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which means there's not a total collapse, even with a concrete core, Same as a steel core.

That doesn't work for you. :no: Do your homework, and do it right because you have once again, broadcasted your lack of knowledge, and done so for all to see.

The Windsor Building Fire

Around midnight, on Saturday, February 12, 2005, a fire was detected on the 21st floor. The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors

The Damage

The Windsor Tower was completely gutted by the fire on 12 February 2005. A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1). It was believed that the massive transfer structure

at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building.The whole building was beyond repair and had to be demolished. The estimated property loss was €72m before the renovation.

Based on the footages of available media filming, Table 2 summarises the estimated time frame for the structural collapses of the Windsor Tower.

Table 2 Estimated time frame of collapses (NILIM 2005)

Time

Collapse Situation

1:29

East face of the 21st floor collapsed

1:37

South middle section of several floors above the 21st floor gradually collapsed

1:50

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:02

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:11

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:13

Floors above about 25th floor collapsed

Large collapse of middle section at about 20th floor

2:17

Parts of floor slab with curtain walls collapsed

2:47

Southwest corner of 1 ~ 2 floors below about 20th floor collapsed

2:51

Southeast corner of about 18th ~ 20th floors collapsed

3:35

South middle section of about 17th ~ 20th floors collapsed

Fire broke through the Upper Technical Floor

3:48

Fire flame spurted out below the Upper Technical Floor

4:17

Debris on the Upper Technical Floor fell down

fig.gif

Buckling of unprotected steel perimeter columns at the 9th floor

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it just to back up the official story? Seems to be.

Facts and evidence backup the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think there was any boiling metal, you're in a minority of one.What advantage is there in arguing with someone who denies accepted facts?

You never answered my question as to how they could identify a molten metal. If you can't explain that, then their judgement is indeed no better than mine.

A minority of one? THAT is classic denial.

In addition to Tully and Loizeaux, there were many others including firemen, and pictures taken of the phenomenon, including from satellites overhead.

You and me, sitting here in front of a computer monitor, are no more or less qualified to judge than people who were actually on the scene? You and me are equally qualified to judge as an 8 stage rotating drum impactor monitored by DOE and college professors?

What a dreamer you are sir! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A minority of one? THAT is classic denial.

In addition to Tully and Loizeaux, there were many others including firemen, and pictures taken of the phenomenon, including from satellites overhead.

They are all saying "molten". It's only you saying "boiling". There's an enormous temperature difference between the two.

You and me, sitting here in front of a computer monitor, are no more or less qualified to judge than people who were actually on the scene?

If there's no way to tell which metal it is, what does it matter whether you're on the scene or not?

You and me are equally qualified to judge as an 8 stage rotating drum impactor monitored by DOE and college professors?
What do those professors say about the sources of the particles they collect? Do they say they come from "boiling metal" or do they say "a dry, hot source"? Here's a hint:

http://www.ecoisp.com/perspectives29.asp

Incidentally, they do not, as you claim, mention iron microspheres in that link. What was your source for that?

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting video comparing an actual demolition highrise in China to WTC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another one using the Verinage method. This is where they intentionally collapse a building at the top ...without explosives...and then allow gravity to do the rest. SkyEagle may have already posted this but it begs to be posted again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And finally...5 different Explosion Demolitions...just scroll to the point like the video says...

....Now, compare the WTC collapses, with the Explosion Demolitions...then compare it to the Verinage video.

Is it so hard really to see how jet airplanes crashing into the buildings and the subsequent fires sufficiently weakened the upper levels and allowed the collapse, and gravity did the rest?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiQfnSJmjVg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no metallurgist Swan, not by a long shot.

It might be possible that molten metal does not give off microparticles. I don't know. But according to Dr. Thomas Cahill, who was involved in the sampling of the air, the people working on the pile were very much like working "inside the stack of an incinerator", even though Wittman lied about it.

That is, the metal was literally boiling, for about 6 weeks. At that temperature--higher than the temp required to be molten--the metal gives off the particles that were collected by the UC Davis instrument. "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures, namely the boiling point of the metal."

This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's book, page 264.

No aluminum. Iron particles and silicate, the latter suggesting that the temps were so high, even the earth beneath was boiling.

Highly irregular situation, given a jetfuel and gravity collapse.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no metallurgist Swan, not by a long shot.

It might be possible that molten metal does not give off microparticles. I don't know. But according to Dr. Thomas Cahill, who was involved in the sampling of the air, the people working on the pile were very much like working "inside the stack of an incinerator", even though Wittman lied about it.

That is, the metal was literally boiling, for about 6 weeks. At that temperature--higher than the temp required to be molten--the metal gives off the particles that were collected by the UC Davis instrument. "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures, namely the boiling point of the metal."

This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's book, page 264.

No aluminum. Iron particles and silicate, the latter suggesting that the temps were so high, even the earth beneath was boiling.

Highly irregular situation, given a jetfuel and gravity collapse.

It must be noted that there is a huge difference between the Verinage Videos and WTC. In the Verinage videos, everything was disconnected first...no gas, no electricity, etc. Consider the immense amount of gas inside of the buildings...you are reaching way too far to prove something that is just insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all covered in Christopher Bollyn's book, page 264.

I'm not interested in what Christopher Bollyn says, I'm interested in what Thomas Cahill says. So far, all I've found is that he says that the particles he collected are typical of those from an incinerator, ie a hot dry source, and he makes no mention of iron microspheres. The metals he mentions are those that, as chlorine compounds, vaporise at typical fire temperatures, which is very different from boiling. This is what you'd expect if the particles were coming from combustion of building materials in long-lived underground fires. Here's another Cahill link:

http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm

Edited by flyingswan
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and me, sitting here in front of a computer monitor, are no more or less qualified to judge than people who were actually on the scene?

Demolition experts, experienced investigators, and recovery crews at the scene did not report recovering evidence of explosives. In fact, experts dismissed explosives as responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings and have blamed fires for the collapse of the WTC buildings, and further proof can be found here.

What Seismic Data Revealed about the Collapse of the WTC Buildings

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

http://www.southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Swan, for taking us to the heart of the matter.

We will have to contact the good doctor to ask him if iron particles were there, eh? Perhaps you could do that.

So let's get beyond the fact of the noxious air, and see if as 2 intelligent humans we can figure out what caused that noxious air, and accompanying hot spots that lasted 6 weeks.

As for me, I find it most unlikely that a jetfuel fire up high on the building is going to provide enough energy to create the heat that generated the noxious air.

How 'bout you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too funny Babe Ruth ! You an expert sitting in front of a computer say you can judge what brought down the Towers !

I have now hear it all and It makes cents ! You need to find a Hobby man .

The Demolition expert Job is filled with actual experts !

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So let's get beyond the fact of the noxious air, and see if as 2 intelligent humans we can figure out what caused that noxious air, and accompanying hot spots that lasted 6 weeks.

Definitely didn't have anything to do with thermite.

As for me, I find it most unlikely that a jetfuel fire up high on the building is going to provide enough energy to create the heat that generated the noxious air.
]

The fuel was the catalyst that started the fires which were fed by the contents inside the WTC buildings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demolition experts, experienced investigators, and recovery crews at the scene did not report recovering evidence of explosives.

What else WOULD they say!!

Look at the fictional account below, very closely...

Government Investigator 1: "Hey, Tom! Come over here!"

Government Investigator 2: "What's up Bill?"

Government Investigator 1: "I've found something odd in the debris. What do you think it is?"

Government Investigator 2: "Hmm..I'm not absolutely sure, Bill, but it could be residue from explosives. I think it's worth sending to the lab for analysis."

Government Investigator 1: "Good idea. Let's do that. Who cares if our employer might be evil murderers? "

Soon after, in the lab...

Government Lab Tech 1: "Look at this, Peter...our analysis shows that it is indeed residue from explosives"

Government Lab Tech 2: "So that implicates our own government in the whole thing, right?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Yes it does, Peter."

Government Lab Tech 2: "And we are a government agency, are we not?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Right again, Peter."

Government Lab Tech 2: "So what do we do with this evidence?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Well, that's a very good question. We have two options. If we don't report our findings, we still have our jobs. If we do report our findings, we could be discredited, and threatened with our jobs and lives to immediately retract our findings."

Government Lab Tech 2: "So the smart thing to do is report our findings, right?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Well, of course. Who doesn't want to be beaten to a pulp and left in a ditch?!!"

Do you understand the implications of finding and reporting evidence if explosives? It means the government is murdering its own citizens, If the investigators found any evidence of explosives, it would NEVER come out in public.

Edited by turbonium
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can put the charges any where

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What else WOULD they say!!

Look at the fictional account below, very closely...

Government Investigator 1: "Hey, Tom! Come over here!"

Government Investigator 2: "What's up Bill?"

Government Investigator 1: "I've found something odd in the debris. What do you think it is?"

Government Investigator 2: "Hmm..I'm not absolutely sure, Bill, but it could be residue from explosives. I think it's worth sending to the lab for analysis."

Government Investigator 1: "Good idea. Let's do that. Who cares if our employer might be evil murderers? "

Soon after, in the lab...

Government Lab Tech 1: "Look at this, Peter...our analysis shows that it is indeed residue from explosives"

The residue that 911conspiracist have confused as explosive residue was found to have come from materials used in the construction of the WTC buildings and a reason why no one found evidence of explosives, which explains why there were no explosions evident in the videos not heard and why seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions and to add to that, why no one found evidence of explosives in the rubble of the WTC buildings nor at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Government Lab Tech 2: "So the smart thing to do is report our findings, right?"

Government Lab Tech 1: "Well, of course. Who doesn't want to be beaten to a pulp and left in a ditch?!!"

Apparently, you failed the understand that the majority of investigators, architects, demolition experts who have concurred with the official story, have no ties to the US government. You also failed to understand that American Airlines and United Airlines are not government agencies and yet they have confirmed that their aircraft were loss during the 911 attacks.

Do you understand the implications of finding and reporting evidence if explosives? It means the government is murdering its own citizens, If the investigators found any evidence of explosives, it would NEVER come out in public.

Once again, most of the folks who have concurred with the official story have no ties to the US government.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can put the charges any where

People get the wrong idea that placing explosives inside a steel frame building bring it down. I have posted photos where buildings in Iraq took multiple strikes from cruise missiles and JDAM bombs and yet the structures remained standing. Why?! Because the blast waves flow around steel frames like wind flowing around the wing of an airplane. Here is another example of what I am taking about.Notice the structural columns are sitting in the middle of a crater after more than 1000 pounds of explosive was detonated beneath WTC1 in 1993.

WTC_1993_ATF_Commons.jpg

If explosives are not properly placed and firmly attached to the structural columns and the columns are not pre-weakened, then the building will remain standing because the blast wave will simply flow around the columns, which clearly was the case in the above photo.

RDX is much more effective than thermite yet structural pre-weakening and other explosives are still required to bring down a building during an implosion process. It is difficult to imagine why 911 CT folks think that thermite alone could have brought down the WTC buildings, but that tells me they are not tuned in to the way things are done in the real world of the demolition process where explosives are used.

They seem to think that a large quantity of explosive can be planted and detonated inside a steel frame building and the building will automatically come down.

Let's take a look at other bombed buildings.

bombedbuilding.jpg

390px-Iraqi_dome.jpg

The hole you see at the top of the dome is where a 5000 pound bomb entered and detonated inside the building.

bombed-buildings-540x380.jpg

A bomb blast can blow out windows and sometimes, walls, otherwise, the blast will simply flow around steel and concrete columns. What you see in Hollywood movies doesn't always apply to way things happen in the real world.

As I have mentioned before, no one saw or heard real bomb explosions during the 911 attack nor felt blast waves from bombs.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do your homework. The steel structure of the Windsor building collapsed.

The only thing left standing of the Windsor building was the concrete core. Check it out.

What's missing is the steel around the core of the upper floors which was not covered in concrete. As with the towers, it weakened and collapsed early in the fire.

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

The steel structure collapsed into the heap of rubble and all that is left standing is a concrete core and the amazing thing about that is, the Windsor building wasn't struck by a B-767 when the steel structure collapsed due to fire.

You failed to address my points, just repeated the same nonsense.

The Windsor's steel, as noted below...

"The steel columns at outer wall were made of two 7mm C-type steels.

Though the sizes of the steel columns at the outer walls were small and thin, they had almost no fire protection and were easy to lose the strength.

There was no structural damage under 3rd floor. The reason of not collapsing of the structure under 16th floor can be thought that the steel columns had fire protection and the effective activity of fire brigade."

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.