WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

Its the difference between intellectual honesty and frauds like you...lol

Facts, all facts.

The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum...the evidence points to it being aluminum.

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

[skyeagle409]

Note as with the other flow, it's also where the building sustained heavy damage from the airliner and also has a very heavy fire.

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

[Stundie]

Facts, all facts.

The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum...the evidence points to it being aluminum.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

No facts.......I'm still waiting for evidence for your assertion that temperature under the pile was not hot enough to melt steel.

[Stundie]

Note as with the other flow, it's also where the building sustained heavy damage from the airliner and also has a very heavy fire.

http://www.debunking...moltensteel.htm

Note that the metal pouring out, is not silvery and is retaining it's heat while it falls many floors which means it is not aluminium.

[Stundie]

Fooling no one. Just presenting the facts.

Still awaiting the facts to support your assertion that the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, even though eyewitnesses saw molten steel..

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.

[Little Fish]

'

Question: When were dust samples taken at ground zero? Considering that construction of the WTC buildings involved massive welding operations, and that torches were used during the clean-up at ground zero, is it practical to say that residue from those operations would have been present in the collected dust samples?

the delta study (which analysed air quality, not dust samples) shows the plumes of aluminium and iron aerosols spiked at intervals separated by weeks, which rules out your speculations of clean up operations which would have been continuous. this is why the delta group had to come up with a hypothesis to explain what would cause these by products of extreme temperatures.

Other than clean-up operations, what would molten steel be doing at ground zero anyway?

good question. Edited February 19, 2013 by Little Fish

[skyeagle409]

No facts.......I'm still waiting for evidence for your assertion that temperature under the pile was not hot enough to melt steel.

I guess you missed where readings did not depict temperatures in the range that would have melted steel.

Still awaiting the facts to support your assertion that the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel,

You already read it.

[skyeagle409]

the delta study (which analysed air quality, not dust samples) shows the plumes of aluminium and iron aerosols spiked at intervals separated by weeks, which rules out your speculations of clean up operations which would have been continuous. this is why the delta group had to come up with a hypothesis to explain what would cause these by products of extreme temperatures.

good question.

The extremed temperatures were created during welding and clean-up operations.

[skyeagle409]

No facts.......I'm still waiting for evidence for your assertion that temperature under the pile was not hot enough to melt steel.

You will have noted the aluminum flowing out of the building, which is where some of the aircraft of United 175 came to rest, and what was the main metal used in its construction? Aluminum.

[Stundie]

I guess you missed where readings did not depict temperatures in the range that would have melted steel.

Those readings clearly didn't portray the temperatures in the rubble at GZ.

So your assumption that the temperatures were not hot enough is not based on evidence, just your own delusions...lol

You already read it.

No, if I had read it, I would say so but posting 2 charts which have nothing to do with what you propose is not evidence....lol

Neither is the NASA pictures or paint analysis done by the NIST.

Remember that eyewitnesses say they saw molten steel....not aluminium...lol

[Stundie]

You will have noted the aluminum flowing out of the building, which is where some of the aircraft of United 175 came to rest, and what was the main metal used in its construction? Aluminum.

I have noted that you are talking nonsense and that the metal doesn't lose it's thermal heat quickly like aluminium and is glowing like steel would.

That is probably why nobody said the steel was aluminium except internet debunkers who think they know better...lol

[skyeagle409]

Those readings clearly didn't portray the temperatures in the rubble at GZ.

That won't work for you. The readings definitely were not taken of the Hudson river.

[skyeagle409]

I That is probably why nobody said the steel was aluminium except internet debunkers who think they know better...lol

Since temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, but more than enough to melt aluminum, then what they saw was aluminum, which is clearly evident in the photos.

Temperature Data at Ground Zero

Analysis of the data it collects indicates temperatures at Ground Zero of above 800 degrees Fahrenheit, with some areas above 1,300 degrees. On September 16, dozens of “hot spots” are seen, but by September 23, only four or five remain.

[US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 11/27/2001; US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 10/2002

Not nearly enough to melt steel.

Edited February 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Still awaiting the facts to support your assertion that the fires under the rubble were not hot enough to melt steel, even though eyewitnesses saw molten steel..

They were not trained to identify molten metal.

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.

Most likely aluminum, considering the many tons of aluminum used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the B-767, not to mention the flowing aluminum from WTC2.

Cherry Red Steel

Don Carson, a hazardous materials expert, later will say, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out [of the WTC rubble] that are still cherry red. It’s like the charcoal that you put in your grill.… You light it and it stays hot.”

[NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, 11/1/2001

Edited February 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures.

Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

[Stundie]

That won't work for you. The readings definitely were not taken of the Hudson river.

What are you talking about now?? Hudson River?? lol

Post some evidence to support your silly assertions that the temperatures were not hot enough in the rubble or just admit, you self pwned again didn't you?? lol

[Stundie]

Since temperatures were not high enough to melt steel, but more than enough to melt aluminum, then what they saw was aluminum, which is clearly evident in the photos.

Not nearly enough to melt steel.

Jesus, its like dining with stupid...lol

Those are the satellite photos showing the SURFACE TEMPERATURES, not the temperatures in the rubble, which is the evidence you need to back up your assertion and prove there was molten steel, even though there was plenty of people who witnessed molten steel. lol

It's funny but sad watching you pretend these people don't exist or are mistaken when evidently, you are mistaken.......lol

[Stundie]

They were not trained to identify molten metal.

You don't need to be trained to realise that when there is something molten metal, you cool it down and can work out what it was.

Besides, experts who have the relevant training say you are wrong internet warrior....lol

Most likely aluminum, considering the many tons of aluminum used in the facade of the WTC buildings and in the B-767, not to mention the flowing aluminum from WTC2.

Most likely steel, considering that there was an abudance of steel and people remember seeing molten girders and beams, which were made from steel last time I checked. lol

[skyeagle409]

What are you talking about now?? Hudson River?? lol

You did not understand why I threw in the Hudson river because you are not paying attention. Now, understand that the readings were taken of ground zero.

[skyeagle409]

You don't need to be trained to realise that when there is something molten metal,...

Okay, then tell us what metal is flowing from this WTC building,

May I remind you that Richard Gage and Seven Jones have both been discredited? And, I might add that American Institute of Architects and the Society of Civil Engineers have also trashed their claims.

Edited February 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You don't need to be trained to realise that when there is something molten metal, you cool it down and can work out what it was.

Then, why are you arguing that the molten flow is molten steel when it fact, it's aluminum?

[skyeagle409]

YBesides, experts who have the relevant training say you are wrong internet warrior....lol

Most likely steel, considering that there was an abudance of steel and people remember seeing molten girders and beams, which were made from steel last time I checked. lol

Not likely at all considering the temperatures were too low to melt steel but high enough to melt aluminum and weaken steel. Now, examined this video and tell us what evidence in this video proved that fire brought down WTC2.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARiWQFqGO_k[/media]

Edited February 19, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

You did not understand why I threw in the Hudson river because you are not paying attention. Now, understand that the readings were taken of ground zero.

I don't think you understood why you threw in the hudson river??

I understand the reading were taken of GZ, but what your 40 years of expertise fails to recognise is those images show the SURFACE temperature, not the temperature in the rubble. I know a rank amatuer like myself is having to school you on the difference between the surface temperature and the temperature under the rubble, but if you want to claim that the temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel, using the surface temperature is inaccurate and doesn't prove that there was no molten steel.

When you consider the witnesses reported molten steel, not aluminium.....lol

[Stundie]

Okay, then tell us what metal is flowing from this WTC building,

Probably Steel....lol

May I remind you that Richard Gage and Seven Jones have both been discredited? And, I might add that American Institute of Architects and the Society of Civil Engineers have also trashed their claims.

May I also remind you that you and your 40 years of expertise have been discredited too by a rank amatuer like me.

Another post of super fail.......lol

[Stundie]

Then, why are you arguing that the molten flow is molten steel when it fact, it's aluminum?

Its not fact it's aluminium as not a single person who witnessed the molten metal refer to it as steel.......lol

Not sure why you keep repeating yourself when there isn't a single piece of evidence to support your assertions that the eyewitnesses were wrong.