NYC World Premiere. Firefighters, Architects & Engineers: Expose the Myths of 9/11

a reply to: skyeagle409

A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.

Not proven yet.

What "appears" is not a fact.

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.

Suggest is not proof "suggest" is an "opinion".

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.

This is nothing more than someone's "opinion"

The word uses such as "might" or "probably" are not facts they are "opinions" only.

"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."

Probably? again it is an "opinion" not a proven fact.

Furthermore the rest is all opinion. No proven facts in your post. I should remind you that all the office furniture and carpet and drapes had to be fire resistant material which would fall under Code for the WTC.

a reply to: Informer1958

Not proven yet.

Already has,now prove me wrong.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Already has,now prove me wrong.

You have been proven wrong in every post that you posted to me.
Not only have I proved you wrong, but I gave you credible sources in most of my post to back up my statements to you.

I cant help it if you chose not to read my posts, it appears to me, my "opinion" that you have selective vision, and read only material that supports your beliefs.

You need to wake up skyeagle and accept the fact you have been mislead and fooled that the OS is true. Look no one is buying into your posts. Take a break, go for a walk think about it.

a reply to: Informer1958

ou have been proven wrong in every post that you posted to me.

That is false and whenever I challenged you to prove me wrong, you backed down. That is typical of they way you work. If you had done your homework, you would have found why I was correct when I stated that the molten flow was aluminum., but as was the case, you failed to do so, so in that regard, you have no case.

a reply to: skyeagle409

oh wow, you are the real deal. The molten steel was aluminum?

originally posted by: DarthFazer
9-11 from the perspective of a statist & supporter of the official story/lie

On the morning of 9/11, 19 men armed with box-cutters led by a man on dialysis in a cave half way around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop, directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most guarded air space on the planet.
Overpowering the passengers and the combat trained pilots of 4 commercial aircraft before flying them wildly off course for over an hour without them being Chased or followed by a single fighter interceptor.

These 19 terrorists, devoted Muslims, who liked drinking and snorting coc aine managed to knock down 3 buildings with two planes in NY, and in Washington a pilot who wasn't able to handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8000 ft descent hitting the Pentagon in the very same office where DOD staff was working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion taxpayer dollars the defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced missing the day before.

Luckily the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, and the administration knew within hours. The evidence literally fell from the sky.
They didn't bother to look who funded the attack because that question was "of little practical significance" The DIA, FCS and the CIA destroyed all their records on the case, as part of "standard record keeping".

Osama kept running for 10 years, finally he was found unarmed and not resisting, the only man who could tell what really happened, and they shot him....Then they dropped his body into the ocean, "in accordance to Islamic traditions", first of it's kind in 1400 years, then a couple dozen of the seal team that were involved in the operation died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan a few months later.

This is the story of 9/11. If you have any questions about it, you are a bat# paranoid tinfoil, dog-abusing, baby hater. If you love your country and or freedom, rock and roll, puppy dogs and apple pie you will never, ever express doubts about this story, to anyone, ever. Enjoy your fascism.

Deserves repeating

*Please allow my long quote to stand. I once had a lengthy post

removed, but there are times I feel, that they need repeated. I mean, others repeat lengthy comments over&over&over again.

a reply to: FlySolo

oh wow, you are the real deal. The molten steel was aluminum?

Tyou got it wrong again because this photo proves that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel. You don't see any burning steel columns in this photo.

Photo: No Burning Steel

However, you can see silvery droplets falling from the northeast corner of WTc2, which clearly, are not steel by any means.

Photo: Molten Aluminum

Molten Aluminum

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 and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) 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."

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: Informer1958

Typical. You completely skip over the fact that the firefighters you have listed by name DO NOT think there were bombs that day. I suggest you read their entire interviews rather than keep going with the quote mining. Especially since you think that the incomplete research used in the posts proves you have debunked something.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: skyeagle409

It took WTC7 17 seconds to collapse and that is not free fall speed. Add to the fact that WTC7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse, which indicates massive destruction of its steel structure that was incurred during the collapse of WTC1.

Actually WTC 7 fell a little faster than free fall, in fact it fell 2 seconds faster and yet you deny this huge fact.

NIST had to retract their false narratives and had to add this fact in their pseudo report and was force to by A&E. This is another fact that blows the OS to pieces.

Demolition of large structures consists of removing supports and allowing collapse. How would explosives cause something to fall faster than free fall speeds? This claim of faster-than-freefall indicates that the claimants are in serious error in the estimate of collapse times and have no concept of how large scale demolitions work.
If you need a conspiracy, look to the conspiracy of silence after the fact, as the Bush appointees avoided answering embarrassing questions regarding their incompetent leadership.

a reply to: skyeagle409

You have said nothing that rules out thermite.

Tyou got it wrong again because this photo proves that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel. You don't see any burning steel columns in this photo.

You can only see the facade. I say it is run off from thermite used inside the building, it's not going to melt straight through every piece of metal it touches, anymore.

Also, it looks way too reactive to be molten aliminium.

And btw, that chart used in that video is off in the low and high regions. At 600C it is completely silver like the Terminator.

I have seen this myself.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: skyeagle409

You have said nothing that rules out thermite.

Tyou got it wrong again because this photo proves that the molten metal was aluminum, not steel. You don't see any burning steel columns in this photo.

You can only see the facade. I say it is run off from thermite used inside the building, it's not going to melt straight through every piece of metal it touches, anymore.

Also, it looks way too reactive to be molten aliminium.

And btw, that chart used in that video is off in the low and high regions. At 600C it is completely silver like the Terminator.

I have seen this myself.

How can it look "way too reactive to be molten aliminium[sic]?" Other threads have discussed the thermite claims. I have posted many times that thermite demolitions cannot be timed. One can time the ignition within a few seconds, but the reaction rate is slow and the effect is not predictable. This means that we can't time when the structure fails with any accuracy. A failure can happen in too many ways. A beam will fail depending on its temperature and load; unloaded beams will take much longer and may not fail completely. Loaded beams will start failing as their temperature rises based on the load.

Thermite is a poor choice for something like this.

a reply to: skyeagle409

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."

You do know this statement is absolute garbage don't you? Experiments have been done to try and mix burning organics with molten aluminium and have found it impossible. This is just another ridiculous attempt by debunkers to explain the anomalies of that day.

a reply to: pteridine

But a fireball down the elevator and random office fires managed to time the building collapse perfectly?

a reply to: RogueWave

You have said nothing that rules out thermite.

Of course we can rule out thermite. Ever wondered why thermite is not used to demolish tall steel frame buildings? Secondly, Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been caught lying about thermite.

You can only see the facade. I say it is run off from thermite used inside the building, it's not going to melt straight through every piece of metal it touches, anymore.

Since the aircraft impacts were violent enough to dislodge fire protection from steel columns, what makes you think that thermite would have remained attached as well?

a reply to: FlySolo

The fireball was from jet fuel, not explosives.

a reply to: Flatcoat

You do know this statement is absolute garbage don't you?

On the contrary, I am right on the mark. That corner of WTC2 is where much of the aluminum aircraft came to rest and if you take a look, that corner is in flames. The temperature of that fire is high enough to melt aluminum but far too low to melt steel. Now that it has been firmly established that the aluminum airframe came to rest in that corner of WTC and that corner is in flames, the aluminum would have been melted and mixed with contents from within United 175 and within that section of WTC2. The silvery droplets was proof that the molten flow was not steel.

Experiments have been done to try and mix burning organics with molten aluminium and have found it impossible.

Molten aluminum flowing over contents is not going make that distinction.

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 ppears 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.”

Nothing there about molten steel, but it does mention molten aluminum.

a reply to: RogueWave

Also, it looks way too reactive to be molten aliminium.

You lost me there because molten aluminum is reflective.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: pteridine

But a fireball down the elevator and random office fires managed to time the building collapse perfectly?

The fireball down the elevator shafts did not destroy the building. Timing means that a demolition team cannot predict when the structure will fail. Random office fires weakened the steel and resulted in collapse. These are not timable either.

a reply to: pteridine

I have posted many times that thermite demolitions cannot be timed. One can time the ignition within a few seconds, but the reaction rate is slow and the effect is not predictable. This means that we can't time when the structure fails with any accuracy.

There would be no need for supoer accurate timing if it was used to "soften up" certain elements of the building before detonating explosive charges.

originally posted by: RogueWave
a reply to: pteridine

I have posted many times that thermite demolitions cannot be timed. One can time the ignition within a few seconds, but the reaction rate is slow and the effect is not predictable. This means that we can't time when the structure fails with any accuracy.

There would be no need for supoer accurate timing if it was used to "soften up" certain elements of the building before detonating explosive charges.

No sense in taking chances of discovery of the plot then. Just let the fires burn until the building collapses without noisy explosives....which it did, didn't it?