It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I DON'T CARE about HOW 9/11 happened, I CARE about WHO did it!!!

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
What matters is how can you prove that the government really did it? Is the manner of the collapse of the towers the only reason?


I think that the image of the towers coming down in free-fall as in a controlled demolition is the most compelling reason that the general public can relate to.

I think that trying to figure out specifically who the decision maker was at the top is probably just as futile as trying to solve the scientific puzzle. 9-11 truthers don't have subpoena power. The issue is highly complex.

I think it's much more important that the focus be on educating the public that giving up our personal liberties for a phony war on terror is downright stupid.




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc

1. those more advanced sources take longer to cite.
2. Those more advanced sources are less likely to be read.
3. Those more advanced sources are less likely to be understood.
4. Someone does not have to be able to read to be able to see that fire can weaken steel.



Then it would be incumbent on the person you are debating to add to their knowledge base in order to keep up.

If they can't, then they are beneath contempt, and it is not worth your time to try and teach them anything. Ridiculing is good enough for that sort.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The towers came down in free-fall.



Do you have an expert source to cite or is that statement 100% your un-expert opinion.

You've already "claimed":

that cell phones don't work above 8000 feet
(a horribly misinformed claim or an outright lie),

Source: me
Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...
Source: 911research.wtc7.net...


no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire
(a horribly misinformed claim or an outright lie)

Source:www.abovetopsecret.com...

airplane fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken steel
(a horribly misinformed claim or an outright lie),

Source: Discovery channel/my tivo box
Source: www.youtube.com...

9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush.
(a horribly misinformed claim or an outright lie)

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


and now you're claiming that all three towers fell at free fall speed.
(a horribly misinformed claim or an outright lie),

Source: www.plaguepuppy.net...

Source: layscience.net.../124

"Many conspiracy theorists claim that the World Trade Center towers fell equal to (or ludicrously faster than) free-fall speeds. Many photos clearly show falling debris out-pacing the collapse of the building, proving that the structures fell at well below free-fall speeds. "


1. that cell phones don't work above 8000 feet

2. no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire

3. airplane fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken steel

4. 9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush.

5. and now you're claiming that all three towers fell at free fall speed


After making a lot of untrue claims in which you don't cite any non truther non debunker website I suggest that you check my sources and then find a new source that won't spoon feed you inaccurate information. Try sticking to sites that are not 911weknow.com or 911demolitionfacts.com or debunking911.com or 911truthers.com.

Good truthers are able to put forth convincing arguments and cite experts. You appear to have saw a video on youtube. Visted the site wesupport911truth.com website that hosted the video and clicked on all of their friends links who all say the same thing.

I'll explain free fall to you:

1. All objects fall at the same rate in the absence of other forces

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...

Concrete falls at the same rate as concrete.

In the pictures I have shown you can clearly see concrete and debri from the WTC towers 1 and 2 at free fall speed. Well below the collapse. If something is falling faster than the building is collapsing then it's not collapsing at free fall speed.

If wtc7 collapsed at free fall speed or not is still under debate by truthers and debunkers.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


It's truther claims like these:

1. that cell phones don't work above 8000 feet

2. no steel framed building has ever collapsed from fire

3. airplane fuel does not burn hot enough to weaken steel

4. 9/11 was immediately declared an “act of war” by President Bush.

5. and now you're claiming that all three towers fell at free fall speed

That cause debunkers to refuse to offer an open mind to truthers when there are so many HORRIBLE websites spouting claims like this that are easily refuted and debunked all in one.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by MightyAl
 



your request is so overworked...


it was done by a cadre of zealot Arabs, probably radical Whabbists, trained in USA flight schools backed by the CIA,
allowed to flourish because the NSA/CIA had thought that they were a leak-tight & solid agency with NO-flaws & could follow or trace all the militant Arab connections/cell in the USA...

the
Israel Mossad, first learned of this possible adventure from a dreamer/storyteller up in DC back in 1969. (Swann Street)

and they took & ran with the seemingly impossible/improbable storyline of "Arabs Commandeering commercial jetliners & ramming them into 3 distinct landmarks, the WTC, the Pentagon, the Washington monument"

the scenario of using plastic knives, and having two pilots along with 3 hijacker-muscle was set way back in 1969, then reconfirmed to the Phoenix FBI office in a 1995 'tip' letter citing the 6 Arab men taking flight training at the N. Scottsdale airport that same year...

which only became a credible connection 2 or so weeks before the 9-11 event through the Phoenix Electronic Communication message that warned of miscreant Arabs taking flight training in American flight schools --- albiet 6 years too late to make any deterrent action....
everyone was asleep at the wheel---despite warnings!!!


[edit on 17-5-2010 by St Udio]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
The US government says it was a small group of radical terrorists who carried out the biggest most destructive terrorist attack to date, not only that, it was an attack on the heart of America, trade centre towers and the pentagon, essentially foreign soil to the terrorists.

The last terrorist attempt on US soil was that guy jamming gas tanks into a van and leaving in NY, the attempted attack previous to this was the underwear bomber, which incidentally was also another fizzer of a terrorist attack. Now there is a massive difference between these attacks, differences in scale, in cost, planning time, desired and actual effect. The latter attacks seem to me to be usual terrorist attacks, spontaneous, potentially destructive, but for lack of a better word Cheap.

9/11 attacks cost would have been huge, planning time would have taken months, possibly years, and in my humble opinion could not have been actioned with 75% accuracy by a group of fundamental cave dwellers with religious beliefs as their motive, it just doesn’t seem logical. These were more parties involved I suspect international agencies within Israel and Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and unfortunately the US none of which you could call government. Im not a US citizen I know yanks love a good conspiracy theory and I know this subject bitterly divides people in the US but I think most people will admit the world doesn’t know the whole truth and I doubt the US government does either. Hopefully in 20 years the whole truth will come out



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nh_ee
 


So, what would your excuse be for the other five or six times that there were large amounts of put options placed on the airlines that year then? Or did you not realize that the options around that time werent the only time options were placed?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:06 PM
link   

[color=gold]911Vendetta


www.youtube.com...


It does not take a genius to know who is behind 911, most people know who the players are. However, with congress being as corrupt as it is, we will never see any accountability, these treasonous leaders got away with murder and profited very well from their evil actions.

911 will happened again, because the American people allowed these henchmen to get away scot-free. Perhaps, the next time when we lose another few thousand or even a few hundred thousand American citizens, then maybe we may see the American people rise from their slumber and take this country back. But until then Fox News, Glen Beck, Bill O’Reily, & MSM is all they have to keep their brains asleep.


[color=gold]Was the Bush Administration Complicit in the 911 Terrorist Attacks

www.scribd.com...



[color=gold]Foremost 9/11 Whistleblower Discusses Possibility Attack Was Inside Job
Edmonds agrees weight of evidence leans towards criminal complicity

www.prisonplanet.com...


[color=gold]Louis Freeh Charges 9/11 Commission Cover-Up
Former FBI Director Louis J. Freeh slammed the 9/11 Commission Thursday saying it ignored – or "summarily rejected" – the most critical piece of intelligence that could have prevented the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001


archive.newsmax.com...


[color=gold]9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the

www.washingtonpost.com...

[color=gold]9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon's inspector general.

www.cnn.com...

"

[color=gold]The president ought to be ashamed"
Former Sen. Max Cleland blasts Bush's "Nixonian" stonewalling of the 9/11 commission, his "lies" about Iraq, and his flight-suit photo op on the USS Lincoln after "hiding out" during Vietnam.

dir.salon.com...


[color=gold]9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

www.washingtonpost.com...

[color=gold]The Covered-Up Meeting

www.washingtonpost.com.../columns

[color=gold]John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI - Mr. Cole worked for 18 years in
the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division as an Intelligence Operations specialist, and was in charge of FBI’s
foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Mr. Cole had knowledge of
certain activities that directly related to the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. He notified the 9/11
Commission during its investigation, but never received a response. His name and contact information was
provided to the Commission as a key witness by other witnesses, but he was never contacted or
interviewed

www.nswbc.org...

[color=gold]Leading 9/11 Widows Declare 9/11 Commission A Whitewash

www.911truth.org...


If 911 was what the government said it was, then why all the Deceptions and cover- up and proven out- right lies.

Those of you who insist that the Truth movement believe in:


secret conspiracies, that's one thing, but why do they absolutely have to go around rewriting and embellishing everything they touch? Invisible controlled demolitions? Hordes of disinformation agents planted throughout all walks of life? Coverups of cruise missiles hitting the Pentagon? Faked crash sites in Pennsylvania? Jeez Louise, these people read too many comic books.


Why is it mostly the same OS believers who make up false statements, insults, and ridicule every single poster who speaks out against the OS, every single day, day in day out 24 hours a day 7 days a week 12 months a year, year in year out the same posters spewing nothing insults. To imply all Truthers read too many comic books pretty much says you are in here just to ridicule all Truthers.


Why can't the WTC have really come down from the plane inpacts and the fires,


Because credible [color=gold]SCIENCES proves it was impossible.


AND that there was a conspiracy to instigate a false flag operation?


The circumstantial evidences points to a false flag, This is not opinion this is fact.



Most calls from 9/11 aircraft were made via back of seat airfones.


Your Joking right? I would like to see your sources to back that ridiculous statement,


Do you subsribe to the view that all the closest relatives called were totally fooled by agents voice morphing ? Even the woman who told her sister the combination to her safe and those who only booked on their flights last-minute ?


Who’s opinion was that one by?



Why do we always see dishonest arguments like this posted everywhere?


Because the OS believers cannot support lies with more lies. Science proves their lies.



1- that truthers are dead wrong when they say that a jet fuel fire couldn't weaken steel


Science proves you wrong.

Jet fuel burns at its hottest at 1500 degrees, how could it melt the WTC steel when it is required to be heated over 2000 degrees for many hours not just one hour? Go look it up.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Why can't the WTC have really come down from the plane inpacts and the fires,


Because credible SCIENCES proves it was impossible.

AND that there was a conspiracy to instigate a false flag operation?


The circumstantial evidences points to a false flag, This is not opinion this is fact.


Most calls from 9/11 aircraft were made via back of seat airfones.


Your Joking right? I would like to see your sources to back that ridiculous statement,

Do you subsribe to the view that all the closest relatives called were totally fooled by agents voice morphing ? Even the woman who told her sister the combination to her safe and those who only booked on their flights last-minute ?


Who’s opinion was that one by?


Why do we always see dishonest arguments like this posted everywhere?


Because the OS believers cannot support lies with more lies. Science proves their lies.


1- that truthers are dead wrong when they say that a jet fuel fire couldn't weaken steel


Science proves you wrong.


I just linked this stuff and you totally ignored it

What about the MIT investigation?
What about the perdue investigation?
WHat about the northwester investigation?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sound science supporting the airplane fire theories. So when you say that the science proves their lies what about that science?




www.youtube.com...

PROOF THAT FIRE CAN WEAKEN STEEL



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcpc1
 



1- that truthers are dead wrong when they say that a jet fuel fire couldn't weaken steel

Science proves you wrong.


Jet fuel burns at its hottest at 1700 degrees, how could it melt the WTC steel when it is required to be heated over 2000 degrees for many hours not just one hour? Go look it up.



What about the MIT investigation?
What about the perdue investigation?
WHat about the northwester investigation?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


What about it?


www.youtube.com...

PROOF THAT FIRE CAN WEAKEN STEEL


Yes, thin lightweight steel. Apples and oranges.

The fact that they did not use the same kind of steel that the WTC were built with
The steel the WTC was tested to handle 2,000 degrees, in fact the WTC were "over built."
You are using a video with steel containing what elements? Comparing to the WTC steel? Remember it has been proven most of the fuel burnt off on impact as all the videos show. Oh, don’t for get the famous photo of a woman wearing white slacks waving for help, her clothes are not burnt. Where is your raging hot firer in the impact hole eh?

Your video is trying to compare apples and oranges. I agree when steel burns at a hot temperature it will melt however, the firers in the WTC were not hot enough to melt the steel and not in one hour.

Now if you want to bring up nano Thermite I will agree with you that it will melt the steel in the WTC and it would not take long to do it. Perhaps that is the only way to explain why the WTC continue to burn for several months and firefighters went on record as stating to seeing molten pools of steel running like a river in the WTC rubble.
Airplane fuel and office firers would not be hot enough to do any of that.

The steel at the WTC were tested to handle 2,000 degrees burns for many hours, yet they stood for only an hour after been hit. Something else was being used to help melt the WTC steel, perhaps nano Thermite.


[color=gold]January 25, 2001: WTC Construction Manager Says Tower Could Sustain Multiple Plane Impacts

Frank De Martini, an architect who works as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, is interviewed for a History Channel documentary about the WTC towers. He says, “I believe the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door, this intense grid, and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing the screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” [DWYER AND FLYNN, 2005, PP. 149] De Martini will be in his office on the 88th floor of the North Tower when it is hit on 9/11. He will die when the tower collapses, after helping more than 50 people escape. [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 8/29/2003; NEW YORK TIMES, 8/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Frank De Martini, World Trade Center


www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline



[color=gold]February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting It

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [SEATTLE TIMES, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings:

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 131-132; LEW, BUKOWSKI, AND CARINO, 10/2005, PP. 70-71] The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001). However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.”


www.historycommons.org...:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline


The melting point of steel is 2800 degrees F. The hottest you can possibly get from jet fuel fires is 1800 degrees. (Usually they burn much cooler, such as when they are oxygen-starved). NIST (National Inst. for Standards and Tech.) inspected 236 samples of steel and discovered only 3 that had been exposed to temps about 500 F (they were subject to temps up to 1200 degrees F only).

Frank De Martini – architect- said the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. The intricate lattice structure of the buildings provided resilient and robust structural support. So if a plane hit the buildings it would be like a pencil sticking through a mosquito netting.

William Rodriguez was in the building and testified there was a massive explosion in sub-basement before planes hit the building. Seismic evidence shows explosions 14 seconds before the alleged plane hit the North Tower and 17 seconds before any alleged plane hit the South Tower. Seismic data is from Columbia University.


sites.google.com...

I will likely take the word of a confident Frank De Martini, an architect who worked as the World Trade Center’s construction manager, who knows how the WTC were built.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by impressme]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   
Why would the steel have to "melt" in order for the building to fall?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I definitely care about who did 911. It made it undeniably clear that we are all within the deadly reach of radical islamic terrorism. I feel sorry for the inside-job theorists. After that attack you should know damned well what radical islamic terrorism is.


I'm saddened that you have no suspicion that no one other than the hijackers were involved and believe the buck stops with Islamic fundamentalists even though there was wired money from the ISI. Is that not a lead one would investigate to indeed find out who? Should nor ties to U.S officials and agencies be scrutinized and scoured for clues and evidence? Because at that point, when intelligence agencies or others get involved, truly radical Islam begins to look much more like a brainwashing PROGRAM and the attacks planned, with deceit and subversion as real benefits, not virgins in heaven.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by SmokeandShadow]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The reason these conspiracy people are so adamant about finding out the HOW, is because they think it'll help them find a way to blame the particular WHO they have an agenda to blame this on, be it the Jews, the military industrial complex, the CIA, a secret cult of Satan worshipping numerologists, or whatever.

Hey GoodOlDave, you're finally right!

But unlike yourself, there's no agenda except the truth.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul
Please, this was a "notation" almost word for word when describing the word COLLAPSE in one of their reports. It was "notation 1 on the word collapse" and will find the exact statement if it makes you feel any better.


It's a dishonest argument.
Period.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Hey GoodOlDave, you're finally right!

But unlike yourself, there's no agenda except the truth.


I have seen you people admit more than once that there's no way anyone will ever convince you that the 9/11 attack was anything other than a conspiracy. In my mind, someone truly devoted to learning the truth would listen to others and demand that they convince us of whan they're saying, not board up the windows and put upbarbed wire fences to keep it out. This is exactly why I know the details of your own conspiracy claims better than you do, and yet only 1 out of 100 of you ever actually read the 9/11 commission report.

You conspiracy people do in fact have an agenda to convince others of these conspiracy claims at the expense of the truth, regardless of whether you wish to admit it or not.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MightyAl
What matters is how can you prove that the government really did it?


Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA is a good book, I believe.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by MightyAl
What matters is how can you prove that the government really did it?


Webster Tarpley's 9/11 Synthetic Terror - Made in USA is a good book, I believe.


Of course, actual proof would have to be established in a court of law.

That's why I'm wondering whether it's in the best interests of people to expend energy debating this issue. What is the goal?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious_soul

Who even needs a how or who anyhow? This is the USA! We had a story summing up EVERYTHING minutes after the attack from news reporters and eyewitnesses. I'm sure this had no effect what so ever on our loyal politicians and the genuises who created the 911 Commission and NIST reports.


Sorry, but I'm immune to innuendo. Of course the eyewitnesses would have summed up their story only minutes after that attack. They were there watching what was happening right in front of them so they'd have had their story to tell only seconds after the attack. What did you think the FBI was going to do once the attack occurred, start investigating after they got back from their vacation?

Did it ever occur to you that the reason they "came up with the official story so fast" is becuase the hijackers really were fanatical terrorists and not any hand selected group of trained secret agents, and as such they left blatant clues and evidence all over the place?


Hell, 19 people with boxcutters orginating from a cave was enough for the invasion of 2 countries for me. Not an overreaction at all! Three steel structures over 15 stories suffering total collapse due to fire for the first time, completely normal, just go ask anyone besides NIST.


Those "19 people originating from a cave" were all well educated people coming from middle to upper class families, and most of them had university degrees. Plus, they're all religious nuts, and I don't have to tell you how much grief that religious zealots have caused the human race throughout history. Take an outer space religious fanatic with connections all over the muslim world who just inherited billions, allied with a complete sociopath who dismembered his girlfriend's kittens during an argument, with both coming from a society of religious nutcases who starts rioting over such trivial things like Danish nwspapers printing cartoons of Mohammed, and you get outrageous and extravagant events like the 9/11 attack.

Your attempt to misrepresent all this with derogatory statements of "19 people from a cave" is a deliberate attempt to hide the facts and manipulate the truth to make it sound to your liking. This is hardly the proper behavior for someone claimign to be "devoted to finding the truth behind the 9/11 attack", now, is it?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow

I'm saddened that you have no suspicion that no one other than the hijackers were involved and believe the buck stops with Islamic fundamentalists even though there was wired money from the ISI.


I'm saddened that you conspiracy people have this incessent need to distort and manipulate the facts like it was your own personal plaything to deliberately get people as paranoid as you yourselves are. The entire reason you even know about this is because it was the FBI who discovered the money coming from the Pakistani ISI. The FBI informed the Pakistani gov't and the guy in the ISI who made the wire transfer went on the lam before the Pakistani gov't could arrest him. All this came from the exact same India Times article you're misquoting.

...and the conspiracy people actually take umbrage when I say they're just mindlessly swallowing the rubbish those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding them.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

6. Office fires burn at low temperatures of 600-800 dF. Steel melts at 2750 dF. Jet fuel is an ordinary hydrocarbon; its maximal burning temperature is 1200 dF in open air. Neither jet fuel nor the burning contents of the buildings could have caused the towers’ steel structure to buckle or fail.

In reference to the above quote, I found this interesting bit when researching blacksmithing.


HEATING METAL

Temperatures can be judged by observing the colour of the metal as its temperature rises. This can only be learned by practice. The following guide uses terms typical of a smith's workshop.

Black heat (about 550-630°C). No red colour visible except faintly in the dark.
Dull red (about 680-740°C). Used for easy well-radiused bends in mild steel and for forging high-carbon steels.
Bright red (about 850-900°C). Used for simple forging operations, such as bending metal over the anvil, light punching and hot chiselling.
Bright yellow or near-welding heat (about 1 100-1200°C). The principal forging operations are carried out at this temperature, including drawing-down, upsetting, preparing scarfs for welding and punching heavy sections. High-speed steel is forged at this temperature but high-carbon steel must be kept lower.
Full-welding heat (about 1 300-1 500°C). If the blast is correct, the fire clean and compact, a few white bursting sparks will begin to appear. This indicates the correct temperature for welding most grades of mild steel. The surface of the metal appears to "sweat" in the fire.
Brilliant white heat (about 1 500°C). Used for welding wrought iron only and is much too high a temperature for other steels.
Note: A temperature of about 740-850°C is the range for hardening most carbon-tool steels before tempering.

source

From this it is plain to see that steel becomes weakened and is able to bend at much lower temperatures than it's melting point, which could easily cause a loss of structural integrity. For whatever it's worth...

I still have questions about the events of 9/11, but I'm convinced that the full truth of these events will never be known, and certainly won't be found on the internet. Any new investigation would be pretty pointless, as the physical evidence is long gone, leaving nothing tangible to investigate. Sad, but true.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join