WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[monk 56]

How many more posts or threads are going to be wasted on this debate, hell conspiratory people move on to stuff that isn't heavily disputed, in truth i do it very well, win the battles that people can't find an answer for, i'm weary of most threads dropping down a rabbit hole on this forum, hell find new information, win something another way.

[skyeagle409]

I have to support Skyeagle 409 all the way here, there isn't the evidence for this type of conspiracy, my own thoughts are that the United States Government knew that something was going to happen in New York and Washington DC on 9/11, although i don't think they knew it was going to be so awful. Perhaps they didn't apply security as they should have, being a democracy they had to fire up voters, for the aim was to invade countries like Iraq that in the end was found to have nothing to do with 11th September 2001, politics can be crazy!

Thank you!

[RaptorBites]

You do not know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures.

40 years...and you are still being schooled......lol

How do you know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures?

They saw molten steel, so the temperatures must have been hot enough.

Have you ever stopped to think that all eye witness reports are not infallible?

Molten Steel could be the general description given because it is the most common description used for any molten substance.

Can you identify the make up of the 3 molten substances below?

Edited February 13, 2013 by RaptorBites

[Stundie]

They didn't see molten steel.

Yes they did and I'd rather trust the opinions of someone who was actually at GZ, rather than an internet warrior who can't distinguish the difference between reality and his imagination.....lol

[RaptorBites]

Neither are you..but you don't have to be a expert in metallurgy to recognise a molten steel girder.......lol

Funny, if a steel girder was to melt into a molten substance it is no longer a steel girder.

So technically, you would need to be an expert in metallurgy to know what the make up of a molten substance is, which does require testing.

Are you going to sit there and convince me that anyonecan look at a molten substance and with 100% accuracy say..."well that there USED to be a steel girder".

That is just too hilarious to even fathom.

You've got no counter evidence which shows what they saw anything other than steel, other than your opinions and so called expertise which both count for about 1 lira...lol

you have no evidence to prove the molten substance was steel, other than eye witness reports, which like I stated before, are not infallible.

[RaptorBites]

Yes they did and I'd rather trust the opinions of someone who was actually at GZ, rather than an internet warrior who can't distinguish the difference between reality and his imagination.....lol

There we go Stundie....

It is opinion now.....not fact?

[Stundie]

How do you know the temperatures involved because none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures?

Your buddy thinks that he knows the temperatures, so maybe you should help him out?? If you are going to chime in and help your buddy out, at least address the arguments I have made rather than imaginary strawman arguments that I haven't.

I never claimed I know the temperatures involved, thats is the whole point!! lol

So if me and you both agree that none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures, maybe you can explain it to Skyeagle that we can't state the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, when there is evidence from multiple eyewitnesses that there was molten steel.

Have you ever stopped to think that all eye witness reports are not infallible?

Of course I have...lol

The fact is that these people reported it at different times in different locations at GZ, so either they all hallucinated it or there was molten steel at GZ.

I know which one is more likely, do you?? lol

Molten Steel could be the general description given because it is the most common description used for any molten substance.

Yes it could be, but it more than likely it was molten steel.

There isn't a single person who claims there was molten aluminium, yet we are suppose except evidence from people who were not at GZ, who think they know better and that everyone else was mistaken.

Can you identify the make up of the 3 molten substances below?

Not from a photograph, but if I were to guess, the first one is aluminium but could be steel, the rest of them are all steel. If I was actually there, it probably wouldn't be to hard to work out especially as they cooled down.

However, a steel girder is only made from steel, an expert witnessed it. Making your point moot really. lol

[Stundie]

There we go Stundie....

It is opinion now.....not fact?

Yes, there opinion based on what they witnessed first hand...i.e. fact.

Not sure which part you didn't understand.....lol

[Stundie]

Funny, if a steel girder was to melt into a molten substance it is no longer a steel girder.

Where did he say it melted into a molten substance??

So technically, you would need to be an expert in metallurgy to know what the make up of a molten substance is, which does require testing.

No, that is panto debunking because numerous people at GZ said they saw molten steel including firefighters who would have cooled it down and been able to work out what they had just cooled down.

Its ain;t rocket science or mettallurgy, its common sense...lol

Are you going to sit there and convince me that anyonecan look at a molten substance and with 100% accuracy say..."well that there USED to be a steel girder".

Who said "that there used to be a girder."...lol

Its hilarious that you panto debunkers invent points or arguments which don't exist.......lol

That is just too hilarious to even fathom.

Not as hilarious as trying to fathom out how numerous witnesses who said they sat steel, actually saw aluminium......lol

you have no evidence to prove the molten substance was steel, other than eye witness reports, which like I stated before, are not infallible.

And you have EVEN LESS, that it was aluminium.....hahahahaha!!

Nothing at all other than some ridiculous internet warrior who claims he knows better..lol

[RaptorBites]

Your buddy thinks that he knows the temperatures, so maybe you should help him out?? If you are going to chime in and help your buddy out, at least address the arguments I have made rather than imaginary strawman arguments that I haven't.

I never claimed I know the temperatures involved, thats is the whole point!! lol

So exactly how are you so sure the temperatures were enough to melt steel?

So if me and you both agree that none of the sources give an accurate picture of the temperatures, maybe you can explain it to Skyeagle that we can't state the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, when there is evidence from multiple eyewitnesses that there was molten steel.

Of course I have...lol

Can you answer my question Stundie.

Are eye witness accounts infallible....yes or no?

The fact is that these people reported it at different times in different locations at GZ, so either they all hallucinated it or there was molten steel at GZ.

So it goes from one extreme to another? Hallucinations to Molten Steel?

Like I stated before, eye witness reports are not infallible, so if you prefer to take them at face value without any supporting evidence, be my guest. Seems like you are pretty damn well good at that.

I know which one is more likely, do you?? lol

Yes it could be, but it more than likely it was molten steel.

There isn't a single person who claims there was molten aluminium, yet we are suppose except evidence from people who were not at GZ, who think they know better and that everyone else was mistaken.

Of course Stundie. Nobody claimed molten aluminium, so obviously that makes it molten steel. Right.

Walk around with a picture of molten aluminium (2nd photograph I posted) and ask 10 random people what it is a picture of. I can guaruntee you that more than 70% will say molten steel.

I have already done this at work, not 1 person stated molten aluminium....do you know why Stundie?

Not from a photograph, but if I were to guess, the first one is aluminium but could be steel, the rest of them are all steel. If I was actually there, it probably wouldn't be to hard to work out especially as they cooled down.

So now you move goal posts Stundie? Cooled down?

What those people at GZ claimed they saw was a molten substance, which by all means is not cooled down.

Since you were not able to discern the differences of all 3 photographs. I will answer that for you.

1. Molten Glass

2. Molten Aluminium

3. Molten Steel

So apperantly occular identification of molten substances is not accurate, is that fair enough? So yes, even with an expert, tests would be needed to figure out the make up of a molten substance.

A non-expert's opinion on what that molten substance is based on visual identification is not infallible.

However, a steel girder is only made from steel, an expert witnessed it. Making your point moot really. lol

So if an expert were to look at a molten substance is he/she able to discern that it's previous form prior to melting was a girder?

I doubt that Stundie.

Unless of course, your claim is the expert saw a steel girder melt in front of his/her eyes.

Which at that point, I would love for you to cite your evidence.

[RaptorBites]

Yes, there opinion based on what they witnessed first hand...i.e. fact.

Not sure which part you didn't understand.....lol

I don't think you understand the differences between opinion and fact.

An opinion is a belief; it is normally subjective, meaning that it can vary based on a person's perspective, emotions, or individual understanding of something

[RaptorBites]

Where did he say it melted into a molten substance??

No, that is panto debunking because numerous people at GZ said they saw molten steel including firefighters who would have cooled it down and been able to work out what they had just cooled down.

Its ain;t rocket science or mettallurgy, its common sense...lol

Who said "that there used to be a girder."...lol

I was analyzing your own statement Stundie.

Its hilarious that you panto debunkers invent points or arguments which don't exist.......lol

Not as hilarious as trying to fathom out how numerous witnesses who said they sat steel, actually saw aluminium......lol

And you have EVEN LESS, that it was aluminium.....hahahahaha!!

Other than eye witness reports based on opinion on what it was, where is your evidence that it was steel? Do you have a scientific study on the molten substance?

So basically, all you have are opinions and no facts.

You seem to want to take eye witness reports as infallible information Stundie. Are we supposed to take eye witness reports at face value?

http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it

So go ahead and believe eye witness accounts on face value all you want. For me to give them any credence at all, I will need to see hard evidence as well.

Nothing at all other than some ridiculous internet warrior who claims he knows better..lol

Keep tooting your own horn Stundie.

Your posting method and obvious attitude complex really makes your posts shine.

[Babe Ruth]

Seeing aluminum when there is none is very much like seeing a Boeing when there is none. A common affliction in some parts.

[skyeagle409]

Seeing aluminum when there is none...

But, you had already replied with this message.

Cz

OK, I will accept that the 'sheathing' is aluminum...

http://amhistory.si....cord.asp?ID=104

We got your number!

is very much like seeing a Boeing when there is none. A common affliction in some parts.

The following photo of what is left of a Boeing you said, there was none.

Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

So exactly how are you so sure the temperatures were enough to melt steel?

it is skyeagle that has stated dozens of times in the absolute that the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, yet he is unable to provide any evidence to his baseless assertion, but the evidence does suggest that the temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

you should be asking skyeagle how he knows what the maximum temperature was, since skyeagle is the one stating unjustifiable absolutes.

Nobody claimed molten aluminium, so obviously that makes it molten steel.

aluminium is a very distinctive household metal with the unique properties of low emissivity and high reflectivity which make it an easily identifiable metal even in a molten or post molten state. given that NO ONE reported molten aluminium and many reported "molten steel", "rivers of steel", etc, amongst which were experts such as engineers and firefighters, then the evidence leans to molten steel or at least unexpected temperatures high enough to melt steel.

1. Molten Glass

2. Molten Aluminium

3. Molten Steel

your trick question skirts around the pertinent question under discussion which is : what is the temperature of those vats pouring the molten materials, and were those temperatures to be expected at GZ without some accelerant like thermite.

maybe you could state the temperatures of those vats, and while you're at it state the temperature at which concrete melts.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Little Fish

[skyeagle409]

it is skyeagle that has stated dozens of times in the absolute that the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, yet he is unable to provide any evidence to his baseless assertion, but the evidence does suggest that the temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

Show that evidence for all to see. I have already posted the infrared images that proved my point. Conspiracist claimed that the material in the following photo is molten steel, but that is not steel in a molten state.

Now, let's take another look.

Initial analysis of these data revealed a number of thermal hot spots on September 16 in the region where the buildings collapsed 5 days earlier. Analysis of the data indicates temperatures greater than 800 degrees F. Over 3 dozen hot spots appear in the core zone. By September 23, only 4, or possibly 5, hot spots are apparent, with temperatures cooler than those on September 16.

http://pubs.usgs.gov...fr-01-0405.html

800 degrees comes nowhere near the temperatures needed to melt steel. Furthermore, 911 conspiracist did not know that many of the claims of molten steel was misreported.

Leslie Robertson

Robertson says he didn’t use the “molten steel” quote,

http://911myths.com/..._robertson.html

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

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

http://911myths.com/...lten_steel.html

Just a couple of examples where conspiracist failed to get at the heart of claims of molten steel, so I will reiterate that no one saw molten steel.

Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Little Fish]

Show that evidence for all to see

molten concrete, fema appendix c, multiple expert eyewitnesses reporting flowing rivers of molten steel, iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.

[Little Fish]

Williams notes of the presentation only talk of “molten metal”, not steel. It’s possible to construct a case that Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

watch this 1 minute clip and admit you made a mistake, robertson says "river of steel flowing"

[skyeagle409]

molten concrete Fema appendix c, multiple expert eyewitnesses reporting flowing rivers of molten steel,

Follow up on that story and you will see a problem.

...iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.

Ingredients of thermite was also contained in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Once again, thermite is not used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions because it is not effective nor capable of bringing down the WTC buildings especially when you consider the make-up of those buildings, which is another hint why thermite is not used by the demolition industry.

[skyeagle409]

watch this 1 minute clip and admit you made a mistake, robertson says "river of steel flowing"

[media=]

[/media]

You missed this part.

Robertson mentioned “molten steel” in the lecture, but forgot it later, and Williams wrote “molten steel” rather than metal because, ah, he just did. But short of some evidence to support that, this quote doesn’t appear to have much substance.

Edited February 13, 2013 by skyeagle409

[RaptorBites]

it is skyeagle that has stated dozens of times in the absolute that the temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, yet he is unable to provide any evidence to his baseless assertion, but the evidence does suggest that the temperatures were high enough to melt steel.

you should be asking skyeagle how he knows what the maximum temperature was, since skyeagle is the one stating unjustifiable absolutes.

I was not asking skyeagle. I was asking Stundie.

Please Little Fish, do not purposefully redirect my question.

aluminium is a very distinctive household metal with the unique properties of low emissivity and high reflectivity which make it an easily identifiable metal even in a molten or post molten state. given that NO ONE reported molten aluminium and many reported "molten steel", "rivers of steel", etc, amongst which were experts such as engineers and firefighters, then the evidence leans to molten steel or at least unexpected temperatures high enough to melt steel.

All references to "molten steel" is based on occular observation. Which I will repeat AGAIN for you in case you missed it, eye witness accounts are not infallible.

For it to be proved that molten steel is what was flowing underneath the rubble, the material should have undergone tests to come up with this conclusion. Otherwise all we have are opinions.

your trick question skirts around the pertinent question under discussion which is : what is the temperature of those vats pouring the molten materials, and were those temperatures to be expected at GZ without some accelerant like thermite.

maybe you could state the temperatures of those vats, and while you're at it state the temperature at which concrete melts.

It was not a trick question Little Fish. Had you taken the time to read what I was referring to, you would have realized how silly your mis-interpretation of my question was.

The context by which I asked Stundie to identify the 3 different molten material is based solely on his assertion that GZ witnesses are able to discern different molten material from each other by visual observation. Which unfortunately he was not able to. So how are we to say whether or not those at GZ that made the "molten steel" reference are 100% accurate what they saw was molten steel?

[DONTEATUS]

What part of Eye witness Di I miss? THe Towers were hit by Two Airliners,ant things came tumbling down,gravity Helped and we Lost many lifes that day !

Its not like it was magic. Did you all not watch that morning?

[Little Fish]

Follow up on that story and you will see a problem.

I see a problem with your's and your followers' story.

Ingredients of thermite was also contained in materials used during the construction of the WTC buildings. Once again, thermite is not used by the demolition industry for demolition implosions because it is not effective nor capable of bringing down the WTC buildings especially when you consider the make-up of those buildings, which is another hint why thermite is not used by the demolition industry.

iron microspheres unique to the wtc dust as identified in the RJ lee report, unreacted thermitic material which ignites at the low temperature of 400c to produce molten iron, molten glass silicates, molten molybdenum, condensed ultra fine lead oxide residues. all these suggest temperatures capable of melting steel.

in your alice in wonderland world, the 2500 C steel melting temperature from thermite cannot bring down the wtc, but the much lower temperature from ordinary 250C fire can. I'm embarrassed for you.

[RaptorBites]

in your alice in wonderland world, the 2500 C steel melting temperature from thermite cannot bring down the wtc,

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the amount of aluminum oxide found in testing of WTC dust samples.

Thanks

[Little Fish]

Can you provide me with a link or reference to the amount of aluminum oxide found in testing of WTC dust samples.

Thanks

who do i send the bill to?