Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken


joc

Recommended Posts

Once again"you" shift the conversation. You posted a video. Address that one.

How many elevators were there? Did they all fall before the collapse? If not, what sounded like explosions before the collapse where nothing but elevators, but during the collapse, when we are supposed to hear explosions like elevators, because they sound like explosions,and yet they cannot be distinguished in the collapse. I didn't hear one elevator hit during the collapse.

Question is: Did they attribute the sound of explosions to crashing elevators? Yes, or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your videos.

There are no explosions seen nor heard as the WTC towers collapse in the videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might add that the orange colored molten metal is ALUMINUM! :w00t: Which was evident in the in the lower right corner of his photo.

Sorry but Q24 photos show us that it is more like molten steel, it matches the colour, the viscosity where as the others are a poor match. Common sense really...lol

The fact the molten steel drips in globules proves that it is not aluminium because it doesn't produce globules, aluminium is like water at melting temperature. Especially magic glowing orange aluminium.

Mind you, you would know that if you actually knew anything about molten metals...lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not bomb explosions and remember, there was no sound of explosions as the WTC buildngs collapsed, but in case you missed it, we can take another look at WTC7. No sound of explosions as WTC7 collapses.

Now, let's take a look at WTC2

No sound of explosions as WTC2 collapsed either, which also explains why no evidence of explosives was ever found at ground zero.

Its like listening to Fred Phelps, the NISTian version. Trying to explain away the dinosaurs which tear and expose the falseness of the bible they preach.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but Q24 photos show us that it is more like molten steel, it matches the colour, the viscosity where as the others are a poor match. Common sense really..

That does't fly because the molten metal is molten aluminum as indicated by the silvery droplets and the fact the metal is flowing from where the aluminum airframe of United 175 had come to rest. Reality is not with you nor with Q24. :no: .

Is it any wonder then, why experts have also said the molten metal is aluminum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its like listening to Fred Phelps, the NISTian version. Trying to explain away the dinosaurs which tear and expose the falseness of the bible they preach.

Well, anyone can review the WTC videos and noticed that are no explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. In addition:

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to previous questions demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

As for thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited), it burns slowly relative to explosive materials and would require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially).

Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/...s_wtctowers.cfm

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact the molten steel drips in globules proves that it is not aluminium because it doesn't produce globules, aluminium is like water at melting temperature. Especially magic glowing orange aluminium.

You have just proven that you simply have no idea what you have just said, and one reason is, what you have just is nothing but pure fantasy.

Why does NIST state that a yellow stream of molten metal seen in some photographs pouring down the side of WTC2 was aluminum from the crashed plane, even though aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, as well as NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius (900 degrees Fahrenheit) and 640 degrees Celsius (1,200 degrees Fahrenheit)—depending on the particular alloy—well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

http://www.nist.gov/...s_wtctowers.cfm

Mind you, you would know that if you actually knew anything about molten metals...

Ever why I have said that you are incorrect? One reason is, as an airframe technician, I have worked with metals for over 40 years to know that what you have just said was fictional at best. Nothing in that flow indicated the molten aluminum was steel.

The more you post, the more you confirm your lack of knowledge of metals and physics. Perhaps you are just posting to discredit the 911 truther movement.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That does't fly because the molten metal is molten aluminum as indicated by the silvery droplets....*snip*

Wrong....

ethg2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong....

ethg2.jpg

You might want to check out that lower right photo because that is the area where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest which is why the molten aluminum is flowing from that location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, anyone can review the WTC videos and noticed that are no explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. In addition:

Anyone can speak to people who were there at GZ and noticed explosions as the building collapsed too.

In addition to your NIST FAQ, this debunks it...lol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone can speak to people who were there at GZ and noticed explosions as the building collapsed too.

In addition to your NIST FAQ, this debunks it...lol

[media=]

[/media]

Take a look at that time line I posted to you the other day and you will see colored material within that molten aluminum. The laws of physics at work, you understand.

Now, where's your proof that the molten flow was steel?

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to check out that lower right photo because that is the area where the aluminum airframe of United 175 came to rest which is why the molten aluminum is flowing from that location.

I checked it out and it was molten steel, you don't need to be a rocket scientists to see the similarities between the lower right photo and the others.

However, it looks nothing like aluminium, but you would know that if you knew anything about molten metals. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked it out and it was molten steel, you don't need to be a rocket scientists to see the similarities between the lower right photo and the others.

Apparently, even the experts and I, disagree with you and rightly so, so once again, where is your evidence that the molten flow is steel? If you don't have it, just say so!

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take a look at that time line I posted to you the other day and you will see colored material within that molten aluminum. The laws of physics at work, you understand.

Sorry but I ain't got a clue what you are on about. The video I posted shows us an assistant professor at NIST trying to create the glowin aluminium and what is clearly show us is that you can't get aluminium to glow that colour by mixing materials with it.

In other words, the NIST are wrong and the evidence shows it was molten steel.

Apparently, even the experts and I, disagree with you and rightly so, so once again, where is your evidence that the molten flow is steel? If you don't have it, just say so!

The experts only exist in your head, showing again that you not only appeal to authority, but you'll even appeal to an imagined authority......lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I ain't got a clue what you are on about.

In other words, you don't have evidence the molten aluminum is steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, you don't have evidence the molten aluminum is steel.

Yes, much more evidence than you have it is molten aluminium thanks. lol

ethg2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I can for a fact Tell you it is molten Metal and some other crap coming off the edge ! My Proof is Positive Knowledge !The facts are the Proof ! :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, much more evidence than you have it is molten aluminium thanks.

I can agree that there is much evidence and here's the proof! Read this report very carefully and understand why the molten flow was aluminum.

Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster

Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11:

(i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the facade of each Twin Tower.

But is there any direct evidence for the presence of molten aluminum at the WTC site on 9-11? The answer to this question is an emphatic: “Yes!” The formation of molten aluminum in WTC 2 just prior to its collapse was discussed in the well known FEMA and NIST Reports on the performance of the WTC buildings during 9-11. Here are the pertinent references:

FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.2.3, page 34:

“Just prior to the collapse (of WTC 2), a stream of molten metal - possibly aluminum from the airliner – was seen streaming out of a window opening at the northeast corner (near the 80th floor level).” NIST: Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster, Volume 4, Appendix H, Section H.9, page 43:

“Starting around 9:52 a.m., a molten material began to pour from the top of window 80-256 on the north face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59 a.m. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.

What have I been saying all along?

continue:

(i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys.

Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548  C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse.

Based on the known properties of molten aluminum in the presence of hydrated oxides in concrete, gypsum and rust we propose the following sequence of events involving aluminum reactions, brought down the Twin Towers on 9-11:

 Boeing 767 aircraft separately strike WTC 1 & 2 and flaming wreckage becomes lodged in the upper floors of each Tower.  Combustibles, such as office furniture, paper and plastic, start to burn, fuelled by at least 10,00 liters of kerosene, and the temperature in the impact zone begins to rise.

What have I said about molten aluminum mixing with contents within the cabin of United 175 and inside WTC2?

continue:

After about 30 minutes, the fires subside, but black smoke continues to pour out of both Towers showing that the fires are not “out”, but “smoldering”. After about 40 minutes, parts of the airframe in WTC 2 approached the critical temperature range of 500 - 550 C where aluminum alloys starts to soften and melt.  At 50 minutes, molten aluminum forms and starts to flow from the airframe in WTC 2.

 The molten aluminum re-ignites some of the smoldering fires and rapidly burns through other combustible materials that survived the initial conflagration. Molten aluminum also falls onto fractured concrete, gypsum and rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions, dispersing globules of molten metal and igniting new fires.

Now, what have I said about components of thermite present at ground zero that had nothing to do with planted thermite? Furthermore, I have said that hearing the sounds of explosions does not automatically attribute those sounds to bomb explosions?

continue:

 The extreme heat generated by the molten aluminum rapidly weakens already damaged steel columns and trusses in the impact zone causing local slumping and partial collapse.  The remains of the semi-molten airframe fall to the floor below and mix with fresh combustible material, air, water, thermite reagents (crushed concrete, gypsum, rust), and sections of aluminum cladding from the Tower’s facade, initiating more explosions.  This sequence of events is now repeated in a rapidly accelerating, and increasingly violent cascade of destruction.

Gravity adds momentum to the downward acceleration of the mass of debris and WTC 2 collapses in less than 16 seconds.  The burning aluminum remaining at the end of the collapse glows brightly for a moment and illuminates the rising clouds of smoke and dust at ground zero.

 About 25 minutes later, the temperature of the aircraft wreckage in WTC 1 reaches the critical 500 - 550 C range where molten aluminum starts to flow. The sequence of events observed in WTC 2 is repeated in WTC 1 and a second global collapse ensues. Based on the calculated trajectory of UA Flight 175 inside WTC 2, the forward cabin area of the aircraft plowed into floors 80 to 82 of the northeast corner of the building. Thus the 3200-liter oxygen cylinder carried in the crew compartment of Flight 175 came to rest precisely in the area where the bright yellow glow was to later appear.

As many videos show, about 50 minutes after impact, fires were well established in localized areas of the northeast corner of WTC 2 – these fires would have gradually heated the entire forward fuselage to temperatures in excess of 200 C. We therefore suggest that the intense yellow glow seen moments before the collapse of WTC 2 was caused by the discharge of the onboard oxygen cylinder and the subsequent enhancement of the pre-existing fires.

Now, do you know what this is? Were you aware that United 175 carried many of these oxygen generators when it slammed into WTC2?

generator.jpggencut.jpg

Now, you know why this report and others, have mentioned the molten metal as aluminum among many reasons.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, much more evidence than you have it is molten aluminium thanks. lol

Which is what can also be read here:

The NY Times article

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was
probably molten aluminum
from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."

http://www.nytimes.c...tml?ei=5007&en=

a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1

Report chronicles the final moments of WTC tragedy

But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.

The
apparent
source of this waterfall:
molten aluminum
from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I can for a fact Tell you it is molten Metal and some other crap coming off the edge ! My Proof is Positive Knowledge !The facts are the Proof ! :tu:

And, evidence clearly points to molten aluminum flowing out of WTC2. What they are telling us is that they lack knowledge regarding molten aluminum. For some reason, they don't understand that the molten flow of aluminum is a mixture of other materials as well.

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong again!!

WTC Steel Data Collection

WTC steel data collection efforts were undertaken by the Building Performance Study (BPS) Team and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) to identify significant steel pieces from WTC 1, 2, 5, and 7 for further study. The methods used to identify and document steel pieces are presented, as well as a spreadsheet that documents the data for steel pieces inspected at various sites from October 2001 through March 2002.

http://911research.w.../WTC_apndxD.htm

All the steel was at Ground Zero.

They sought out the most critical steel for a thorough analysis / investigation.

They didn't find squat. Just a few pieces around the impact/fire zones, and none at all from the actual zones.

Why not?

It was all shipped to Asia, that's why.

Nothing fishy about that, surely!! An honest mistake!!

Sheesh...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the role of Leprechauns in the events of the day. Leprechauns gathered up all the aluminum, put it in one place, and then caused it to melt. :tsu:

They were also at Shanksville and gathered up all those airplane parts from out of the woods so that pictures could be taken of them, so that Sky could present them here as "evidence". :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the steel was at Ground Zero.

Why would there not be otherwise? In other words, ground zero is where the steel came to rest after the collapse of the WTC buildings.

They sought out the most critical steel for a thorough analysis / investigation. They didn't find squat. Just a few pieces around the impact/fire zones, and none at all from the actual zones.

Of course they did not find evidence of explosives, and one reason is, no explosions were evident on video nor on audio and once again, not detected on seismic monitors. Not knowing the rest of the story is why conspiracies create unfounded conspiracy theories.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention because NIST made it clear as to its position.

'A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers, 1, 2 & 7 From an Explosives and Demolition Industry Viewpoint'

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

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Photographic evidence proves beyond a doubt that floors sagged, pulling perimeter columns in. An event some conspiracy sites suggest never happened.

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

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

Steel without thermal protection can fail extremely quickly in a fire:

"One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes." Firehouse.com Sept. 1998

079-full.jpg

EFFECT OF SUPPORT CONDITIONS ON STEEL

BEAMS EXPOSED OF FIRE

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Canterbury

Christchurch, New Zealand

1. Introduction

1.1 General

Structural steel has been widely used throughout the world. It is one of a designer’s best

options in view of its advantages over other materials. Steel is available in a range of discrete

size, and its ductile behaviour allows plastic deformation upon yielding, therefore avoiding

brittle failures.

In reinforced concrete structures, steel enhances the concrete strength by

carrying the tensile forces. It is also commonly used to reinforce timber constructions.

In spite of its advantages, steel on its own is vulnerable in fire.

Elevated temperatures in the steel cause reduction in its strength and stiffness which eventually leads to failure due to

excessive deformations. This is crucial in steel in compared with concrete or timber members

as steel conducts heat very well and often comes in thin or slender elements.

2.4.2 Steel design at elevated temperature

There are a few modifications to be considered when designing structures for fire conditions

although the concepts are similar to those for the ambient condition. Most of the material

properties change with temperature, the strength is reduced upon heating and thermal

expansion may induce internal forces that lead to structural failure with various mechanisms

depending on the type of supports, connections and structural arrangements.

Instability failure also needs to be considered even though the structure still has adequate

strength. The applied loads for fire design are less due to very low probability of the event

occurring when the structure is fully loaded at its maximum capacity, therefore a smaller

safety factor is acceptable.

The actual load at a given time as a proportion of the load that would cause collapse of the

structure is often referred to as the load ratio. Most constructions have a load ratio of 0.5 or

less. Smaller load ratio means greater fire resistance as the reduction of strength of any

member will not necessarily cause collapse of the structure.

Failure mechanisms

The failure of a beam is reached when its strength is exceeded at one or more particular points

termed plastic hinges, depending on they way it is supported. Figure 2.13 is the illustration by

Buchanan (2000), showing the bending moment, deflected shape and the failure mechanism

for different end conditions.

The development of plastic hinges shows ductile behaviour as energy is dissipated

http://www.civil.can...ts/JSepturo.pdf

In the case of WTC examination:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uls-qPlnYj4

Edited by skyeagle409
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget the role of Leprechauns in the events of the day.

Yeah, the Leprechaun passengers at Cleveland Airport that disembarked from an KC-135 that 911 truthers had claimed were passengers of United 93. :lol:

They were also at Shanksville and gathered up all those airplane parts from out of the woods so that pictures could be taken of them, so that Sky could present them here as "evidence".

On the contrary, the same coroner, Wally Miller, which you used as a reference, and not knowing the rest of the story at the time, had also confirmed the crash site as United 93. The next time you use another reference like that, at least know the rest of the story, otherwise, it will bite you in the end just as fast as well. :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.