WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

There is no ‘absolute evidence’ of thermite,....

But, we knew that because there was no evidence of thermite found in the rubble.

...as there is no ‘absolute evidence’ of fire induced weakening – which is the other half to the argument which you have conveniently ignored.

Actually, it has been proven that the collapsed of the WTC buildings was fire-induced. The buckling of the WTC buildings was just one part of the evidence that fires were weakening their steel structures.

Even after testing samples from the fire zone NIST found not one piece of steelwork exhibiting the required temperature.

On the contrary, steel begins to weaken at the temperatures noted in reports.

No, only this severe, high temperature, localised damage to steelwork was discovered.

You shoud have said that no one found evidence that thermite, much less, explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC builidings. Check it out.

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

Whom should we ask to find out if WTC 7’s collapse resembled an explosive demolition? How about asking the explosive demolition experts who were on the scene on 9/11? Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

Controlled Demolition Inc

D.H. Griffin Companies

Mazzocchi Wrecking

Gateway Demolition

Yannuzzi Demolition & Disposal

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

Regarding Jones' theory that nanothermite was used to bring down the towers, and the assertion that thermite and nanothermite composites were found in the dust and debris were found following the collapse of the three buildings, which was concluded to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings, Brent Blanchard, author of "A History of Explosive Demolition in America", states that questions about the viability of Jones' theories remain unanswered, such as the fact that no demolition personnel noticed any telltale signs of thermite during the eight months of debris removal following the towers' collapse.

Blanchard also stated that a verifiable chain of possession needs to be established for the tested beams, which did not occur with the beams Jones tested, raising questions of whether the metal pieces tested could have been cut away from the debris pile with acetylene torches, shears, or other potentially contaminated equipment while on site, or exposed to trace amounts of thermite or other compounds while being handled, while in storage, or while being transferred from Ground Zero to memorial sites.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

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

Dave Thomas of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, noting that the residue in question was claimed to be thermitic because of its iron oxide and aluminum composition, pointed out that these substances are found in many items common to the towers.

Thomas stated that in order to cut through a vertical steel beam, special high-temperature containment must be added to prevent the molten iron from dropping down, and that the thermite reaction is too slow for it to be practically used in building demolition. Thomas pointed out that when Jesse Ventura hired New Mexico Tech to conduct a demonstration showing nanothermite slicing through a large steel beam, the nanothermite produced copious flame and smoke but no damage to the beam, even though it was in a horizontal, and therefore optimal position.

Preparing a building for a controlled demolition takes considerable time and effort. The tower walls would have had to be opened on dozens of floors. Thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms would need to be sneaked past security and placed in the towers without the tens of thousands of people working in the World Trade Center noticing. Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

It is very clear that you concoct unfounded conspiracies despite no evidence to backup your claim with real evidence.

Edited January 22, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

It was a chaplain who spoke to many responders on site and his account is corroborated by others and photographic evidence.

Photographic and video evidence, along with seismic data, proved beyond any doubt that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings.

[+joc]

Referring to a conversation with Stuart Vyse, a professor of psychology, an article in the Hartford Advocate asks, "How many hundreds of people would you need to acquire the explosives, plant them in the buildings, arrange for the airplanes to crash [...] and, perhaps most implausibly of all, never breathe a single word of this conspiracy?"

Reminds me of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.

[flyingswan]

Right, so you refuse to address the argument; you wilfully ignore it. Thank you, that actually makes a lot of sense.

I would be at fault in ignoring it only if it actually was an argument instead of another example of your exceptional quibbling skill.

And what are you talking about? The phenomenon observed at the WTC is not 'commonplace' at all, the authors specifically called it a "very unusual event" for heaven sake – you're fooling yourself there. Simple corrosion is of course commonplace but has not been shown to reproduce the WTC effect to the degree or within the timeframe noted. Why is demonstrating that too much? It's a fundamental requirement of your argument that you cannot achieve. Why are you being ridiculous about it? Yes you need to read the paper and answer the question posed, otherwise having nothing but an appeal to authority and lack of evidence which critical thinkers are not inclined to accept.

They demonstrated a process that produced similar intergranular erosion to the WTC7 sample. What is commonplace is that if a process can start, then it can continue as long as the conditions that cause it are maintained.

Yes the suggestion is that it melted a hole and fell through. Though the adjacent remaining steelwork which was analysed does not experience such high temperature (otherwise that would form a part of the hole too).

The edge of the hole will briefly experience high temperature while in contact with the thermite, but such a high temperature isn't compatible with the evidence. The observed erosion requires the presence of sulphur and prolonged temperature that while high is much lower than that of thermite melting a hole.

There is no 'absolute evidence' of thermite, as there is no 'absolute evidence' of fire induced weakening – which is the other half to the argument which you have conveniently ignored. Even after testing samples from the fire zone NIST found not one piece of steelwork exhibiting the required temperature. No, only this severe, high temperature, localised damage to steelwork was discovered.

They had difficulty finding any steel from the fire zone because these elements were generally broken and had lost their identifying marks. However, they found evidence of exposure to fires between 250 deg C and 625 deg C (there is no method available for measuring exactly where in this range and steel loses a lot of its strength by the time it gets into the upper reaches of the range). This range was consistent with the modelled fire temperatures and lack of likely insulation damage at the locations of the samples. Other locations had higher modelled temperatures, typical of normal building fires, but no recovered identifiable samples to test.

It was a chaplain who spoke to many responders...

Glad you admit it wasn't a direct observation.

The question you ask is rhetorical and not congruent to the situation we have here. The eyewitnesses clearly had reason to deduce that the dripping/melted substance was a product of the material it came from.

My question was an exact parallel to the situation. If you taken from a bath of water can drip water, a block of steel taken from a pool of molten aluminium can drip aluminium.

Once again, deduction isn't measurement. No measurement of temperature, so no proof that the molten metal was steel. Pick a steel beam out of a pool of molten aluminium and it will drip aluminium, but a steel beam in a pool of molten steel will melt too.

Edited January 23, 2013 by flyingswan

[Babe Ruth]

Swan

Actually, Peter Tully of Tully Construction told Christopher Bollyn in the summer of 2002 that he had seen pools of "literally molten steel". Mark Loizeaux confirmed Tully's reports, and reported that there was molten steel at WTC7.

Further, in September 2001, Robert Leifer of DOE in New York, contacted Thomas Cahill of the DELTA Group at University of California. By October they had placed a device known as a 8 stage rotating drum impactor to collect air samples. It was placed at the edge of the "exclusion zone" monitoring the air. While they were monitoring the air, the EPA was doing nothing except telling everybody everything was fine.

The air samples show large presence of iron rich and silicate spheres.

Thus, your claim that molten metal (iron) was not present is wrong. It is mere regurgitation of the official story.

[flyingswan]

Swan

Actually, Peter Tully of Tully Construction told Christopher Bollyn in the summer of 2002 that he had seen pools of "literally molten steel". Mark Loizeaux confirmed Tully's reports, and reported that there was molten steel at WTC7.

Further, in September 2001, Robert Leifer of DOE in New York, contacted Thomas Cahill of the DELTA Group at University of California. By October they had placed a device known as a 8 stage rotating drum impactor to collect air samples. It was placed at the edge of the "exclusion zone" monitoring the air. While they were monitoring the air, the EPA was doing nothing except telling everybody everything was fine.

The air samples show large presence of iron rich and silicate spheres.

Thus, your claim that molten metal (iron) was not present is wrong. It is mere regurgitation of the official story.

How can anyone, even a construction professional, tell if a molten metal is steel or something else? The only way is to wait for it to cool and examine it, though measuring the temperature will rule out some possibilities. However, none of the accounts I've seen include this verification, it is all just based on eyeing pools of molten metal.

Microspheres are another matter. They are metal that has been briefly molten, but cooled rapidly due to their small size giving a high surface to volume ratio. They are nothing unusual, and are found wherever metal is worked since the energy of the working can be concentrated into small volumes to raise the temperature to melting point. Welding fume and the sparks from an angle-grinder are common examples. At WTC they would have been produced in the construction of the buildings, subsequent maintenance, in the violent grinding together of building components during the collapse and in the clear-up.

[Babe Ruth]

OK Swan, what's your opinion of the type of metal that was molten?

And why are you more qualified to judge that than Tully or Loizeaux? And were you actually there, or are you like me--just reading about it?

[skyeagle409]

OK Swan, what's your opinion of the type of metal that was molten?

What metal was abundant in the construction of the B-767s and of in the facade of the WTB buildings? Aluminum, which has a melting point around 1200 degrees F. and well within the temperature range of the WTC fires.

[flyingswan]

OK Swan, what's your opinion of the type of metal that was molten?

And why are you more qualified to judge that than Tully or Loizeaux? And were you actually there, or are you like me--just reading about it?

As Sky says, there was plenty of aluminium present and no problem with conditions at which it would be molten.

I asked you how anyone could tell by eye which metal it was, and I haven't had an answer. If there's no way to tell, then Tully and Loizeaux were just guessing.

[Babe Ruth]

As Sky says, there was plenty of aluminium present and no problem with conditions at which it would be molten.

I asked you how anyone could tell by eye which metal it was, and I haven't had an answer. If there's no way to tell, then Tully and Loizeaux were just guessing.

If it were molten aluminum in the bowels of the buildings for weeks, then the samples collected by the DELTA Groups 8 stage rotating drum impactor would have shown aluminum. Those samples showed microparticles of iron and silicate, NOT aluminum.

I'm not sure how much aluminum was used in the construction of the towers, but I know that one helluva lot of steel was used. It was called a steel and concrete structure, just like all the buildings around them.

As for the aluminum in the airplanes being the source of your theoretical aluminum, that's ridiculous. Upon penetration, the aluminum was shredded and thrown to the four winds. It could not possibly have collected in the bowels of the building and remained molten for weeks.

Unless, of course, some of Sky's leprechauns were working there that day.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Babe Ruth

[flyingswan]

If it were molten aluminum in the bowels of the buildings for weeks, then the samples collected by the DELTA Groups 8 stage rotating drum impactor would have shown aluminum. Those samples showed microparticles of iron and silicate, NOT aluminum.

There's not much point replying to you if you don't read my replies. The microspheres have nothing to do with pools of molten metal.

I'm not sure how much aluminum was used in the construction of the towers, but I know that one helluva lot of steel was used. It was called a steel and concrete structure, just like all the buildings around them.

You didn't read Sky's reply, either. The entire facade of both towers was aluminium. That's about 2000 tons per tower.

As for the aluminum in the airplanes being the source of your theoretical aluminum, that's ridiculous. Upon penetration, the aluminum was shredded and thrown to the four winds. It could not possibly have collected in the bowels of the building and remained molten for weeks.

Shredded aluminium is still aluminium. There's dozens of tons in an airliner. It doesn't just vanish.

[Czero 101]

I'm not sure how much aluminum was used in the construction of the towers, but I know that one helluva lot of steel was used. It was called a steel and concrete structure, just like all the buildings around them.

As for the aluminum in the airplanes being the source of your theoretical aluminum, that's ridiculous. Upon penetration, the aluminum was shredded and thrown to the four winds. It could not possibly have collected in the bowels of the building and remained molten for weeks.

Way to show how willfully ignorant you truly are of the basics of this topic!...

Cz

[skyeagle409]

If it were molten aluminum in the bowels of the buildings for weeks, then the samples collected by the DELTA Groups 8 stage rotating drum impactor would have shown aluminum. Those samples showed microparticles of iron and silicate, NOT aluminum.

I'm not sure how much aluminum was used in the construction of the towers, but I know that one helluva lot of steel was used.

Apparently you were not aware that 43,600 aluminum panels were used to cover the facade of the WTC buildings. How many tons of aluminum does that make?. How many tons of aluminum was used in the construction of each B-767?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:3udmnOhTLiAJ:www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf+how+much+aluminum+made+up+facade+of+wtc+buildings&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShtcUfVma25T97hHXQDmalDgzATUfkdF03qLj3G4bml5KaCWE1ACP4kbTs2vie13daT4rAuER7WVUvOF2mQsYH-MN6koqGK_wmNlQpguVUdgM67djiFG9z7W5SAEdvYojuIKD5D&sig=AHIEtbStOEBnkKcc55H4sP1628V5zrlDyA

As for the aluminum in the airplanes being the source of your theoretical aluminum, that's ridiculous. Upon penetration, the aluminum was shredded and thrown to the four winds.[it could not possibly have collected in the bowels of the building and remained molten for weeks. Unless, of course, some of Sky's leprechauns were working there that day.

[DONTEATUS]

I wonder just how many Idiots still really believe that the towers were actually a Conspricey ?

[Babe Ruth]

There's not much point replying to you if you don't read my replies. The microspheres have nothing to do with pools of molten metal.

You didn't read Sky's reply, either. The entire facade of both towers was aluminium. That's about 2000 tons per tower.

Shredded aluminium is still aluminium. There's dozens of tons in an airliner. It doesn't just vanish.

I do read your replies Swan, and they defy common sense and logic. IF aluminum were boiling down below, AND air samples were being collected, THEN the air samples would have had particles of aluminum in them. There were no aluminum particles found, THEREFORE aluminum in sufficient quantity was not present. How much more simple can it be?

The microparticles have EVERYTHING to do with whatever metal was giving them off. Indeed, the metal down below created the particles. Either you completely do not understand what happened, or you are simply in denial about it.

I don't believe a word Sky says here, or a picture he posts, because he has already deceived me once, and I won't be fooled again.

Many years ago I took the Public Tour of the towers, and the tour guide said the exoskeleton was made of stainless steel of some sort. Now Sky says they were aluminum. Who to believe? (Hint: it's not a tough decision) The exoskeleton, as the word implies, was part of the structure. What advantage would there be to using aluminum over steel in such an application?

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? Were you there?

[Sweetpumper]

I wonder just how many Idiots still really believe that the towers were actually a Conspricey ?

There were never really any towers.

[skyeagle409]

I don't believe a word Sky says here, or a picture he posts, because he has already deceived me once, and I won't be fooled again.

You have deceived yourself because those photos have been authenticated and you are just using an excuse to cover up an attempt to deceive people but there are those who are hip to your tricks.

Many years ago I took the Public Tour of the towers, and the tour guide said the exoskeleton was made of stainless steel of some sort. Now Sky says they were aluminum.

The B-767s were not constructed with tons of steel, they were constructed mostly of aluminum. The facade of the WTC buildings were constructed with aluminum. Check it out.

The Facades of the WTC Buildings

The buildings were designed with narrow office windows 18 inches (46 cm) wide, which reflected Yamasaki's fear of heights as well as his desire to make building occupants feel secure. Yamasaki's design included building facades sheathed in aluminum-alloy

http://www.design-la...ter-16pics.html

Historic Twin Tower "Tridents" Installed into 9/11 Memorial Museum

A layer of aluminum originally covered most of the structural steel that formed the façade of the World Trade Center Towers.

http://www.wtc.com/news/historic-twin-tower-tridents-installed-into-9-11-memorial-museum

World Trade Center Facade Fragment - Aluminum

Photo

http://www.flickr.co...liz/6707513011/

http://architecture....orldtrade_2.htm

Edited January 25, 2013 by skyeagle409

[+joc]

I wonder just how many Idiots still really believe that the towers were actually a Conspricey ?

I don't think it is really appropriate to call people 'idiots' about their beliefs, especially when you can't even spell it correctly!

A lot of people, myself included, were led to believe certain things, not because we are 'idiots' but mostly because of our ignorance on the subject. I give kudos to SkyEagle because he throws down the gauntlet of truth about whatever the 'theory' of the moment is.

[DONTEATUS]

What metal was abundant in the construction of the B-767s and of in the facade of the WTB buildings? Aluminum, which has a melting point around 1200 degrees F. and well within the temperature range of the WTC fires.

Like talking to a Brick wall ,eah Skyeagle ! A Brick made of ALUMINUM LoL !

[DONTEATUS]

There were never really any towers.

I taught I saw a Hologram Tower ! Silly Rabbit !

[coolguy]

There was a show on the history channel about the twin towers and they said the towers could with stand a jet plane hit.and the show was never aired again the show was modern marvels.. some thing went on that day.

[turbonium]

And, there was no way that it would have caused a collapse. Even the steel columns remained standing despite sitting in the crater created by the huge bomb blast. Furthermore, I have posted photos of buildings in Iraq that took direct hits from multiple bomb and missile strikes and yet their structures remained standing.

It's random damage, with the expected results. And that means no global collapse.

Since some columns were damaged by the impacts, structural loads were redistributed. The remaining columns were exposed to the effects of high temperatures that resulted in failure of the steel columns, which was evident when witnesses reported that the WTC buildings were buckling just prior to their collapse; a clear indication that high temperature was expanding and weakening the steel structures.

Nonsense.

How many times has random damage initiated total collapse of a steel-framed hi-rise, prior to 9/11? Not once.

But you argue it happened 3 times, on the very same day!

That's some really amazing 'random' damage, indeed!!

Your 'witnesses' must have Superman-like 'telescopic vision', to see it 'buckling' at 80+ stories up!!

Even then, there was no way anyone could have prepared the WTC buildings for demolition and not attract a lot of attention. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge for demolition at ground level.

? Who cares if a maintenance crew is working in the building for a few months? It's normal. Do you think it's like Wile. E. Coyote, with 'TNT' marked on the crates?!!

Just because they heard sounds like explosions doesn't mean they were. After all, no bomb explosions were seen nor heard on audio nor detected by seismic monitors, and to sum that up, there is no evidence that explosives were used despite what 911 conspiracist have claimed. In fact, they cannot even provide evidence of detonation wires and blasting caps within the rubble of the WTC buildings.

There were some witnesses who knew what explosives sounded like, from prior experience. They're certainly more reliable than your 'super-vision' witnesses.

[skyeagle409]

It's random damage, with the expected results. And that means no global collapse.

Apparently, you do not understand the science of the collapse themselves, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Nonsense.

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?.

How many times has random damage initiated total collapse of a steel-framed hi-rise, prior to 9/11? Not once.

How many buildings were struck by B-767s prior to the 911 attacks? Once again, your comment is moot. Did the Windsor building in Spain suffer a collapse of its steel structure due to fire? Yes, it did and the only thing standing was nothing but concrete.

But you argue it happened 3 times, on the very same day!

Well, B-767s, one each, struck WTC1 and it collapse, and another B-767 struck WTC2 and it collapse. WTC7 collapse and suffered from serious impact damage and it collapsed as well. You can't argue with those facts.

Your 'witnesses' must have Superman-like 'telescopic vision', to see it 'buckling' at 80+ stories up!!

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.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground." There would not be telltale signs if it was explosives (Controlled Demolition) that caused the buildings to collapse.

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m." New York Daily News reporter Paul Shin wrote in his June 19th, 2004 article 9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse, Study Says (Update2)

June 18 (Bloomberg) -- Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

http://www.bloomberg...=top_world_news

This close-up video shows buckling, which you said, was nonsense.

? Who cares if a maintenance crew is working in the building for a few months? It's normal. Do you think it's like Wile. E. Coyote, with 'TNT' marked on the crates?!!

Apparently, you do not understand the process of preparing a building for demolition, and if you did, you would not have made such a ridicules comment. It took about half a year just to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX for demolition at ground-level, but in regards to the WTC buildings, we are talking hundreds of feet above street level, in other words, you do not understand the process of what the demolition process is all about.

To sum it up, start doing your homework and stop speculating.

There were some witnesses who knew what explosives sounded like, from prior experience.

I have been in war and seen, heard and felt my share of many explosions and I saw no evidence of bomb explosions in any WTC video. In addition, demolition experts in the area reported they saw no evidence of explosives and seismic monitors detected no bomb explosions and to underline that point, clean-up crews did not recovered evidence of explosives either.

In other words, you have NO valid argument by those very facts and you are proving to us that you are not knowledgeable about explosives nor the demolition process involving building demolitions that use RDX and dynamite.

Edited January 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Nonsense....Your 'witnesses' must have Superman-like 'telescopic vision', to see it 'buckling' at 80+ stories up!!

Apparently, you do not deal in facts and evidence and it has been shown and proven that you deal in fantasy and falsehoods. After all, we have your own messages as undeniable proof. Check out what you claimed was nonsense.

Edited January 26, 2013 by skyeagle409

[turbonium]

How many buildings were struck by B-767s prior to the 911 attacks? Once again, your comment is moot. Did the Windsor building in Spain suffer a collapse of its steel structure due to fire? Yes, it did and the only thing standing was nothing but concrete.

Well, B-767s, one each, struck WTC1 and it collapse, and another B-767 struck WTC2 and it collapse. WTC7 collapse and suffered from serious impact damage and it collapsed as well. You can't argue with those facts.

The Windsor building didn't have a total collapse, with far worse fires, burning about 10 times longer. It still didn't come down fully like the towers and WTC 7 did.

This shows how even very extreme cases of random fire and damage do not result in a global collapse. So it certainy can't be the cause of the three global collapses on 9/11. No way.