Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again...

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You said it yourself?

eutectic temperature! Which is a “ is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.”

That “ approached 1,000 °C” which is not the melting point of structural steel, but the eutectic mixture.

You are taking a FEMA document that states the steel was attacked by corrosion and created a strange eutectic mixture that melted below 1000C. Nowhere did it state unmolested steel free of chemical attack melted because structural steel reached its melting point of 1,130 °C (2,070 °F).

Is it a fact, one way of identifying substances is by melting point. The melting point of structural steel is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) . That is scientific fact. If a substance melted before 1000C, then it did not have the composition of structural steel. It was something more like iron sulfate that has a lower melting point than structural steel.

you're wrong.
You telling me a A36 steel melted in just a 1000c hot environment?

You explain this madness since we know this to be true?



The mixture is liquid!! It contains Iron.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You said it yourself?

eutectic temperature! Which is a “ is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.”

That “ approached 1,000 °C” which is not the melting point of structural steel, but the eutectic mixture.

You are taking a FEMA document that states the steel was attacked by corrosion and created a strange eutectic mixture that melted below 1000C. Nowhere did it state unmolested steel free of chemical attack melted because structural steel reached its melting point of 1,130 °C (2,070 °F).

Is it a fact, one way of identifying substances is by melting point. The melting point of structural steel is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) . That is scientific fact. If a substance melted before 1000C, then it did not have the composition of structural steel. It was something more like iron sulfate that has a lower melting point than structural steel.

you're wrong.
You telling me a A36 steel melted in just a 1000c hot environment?

You explain this madness since we know this to be true?

The mixture is liquid!! It contains Iron.

Ok? How does that help your argument?

This is the full context of the argument.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
When steel cools below the eutectic temperature, the liquid of eutectic composition transforms to two phases, iron oxide, FeO, and iron sulfide, FeS. The product of this eutectic reaction is a characteristic geometrical arrangement that is unique and is readily visible even in the unetched microstructure of the steel. Figures C-4 and C-5 present typical near-surface regions showing the microstructural changes that occur due to this corrosion attack.

www.fema.gov...

FEMA is not saying structural steel melted. Chemicals that created a eutectic mixture melted.

A eutectic system (/juːˈtɛktɪk/ yoo-TEK-tik)[1] from the Greek "εύ" (eu = well) and "τήξις" (tēxis = melting) is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.[2]

The eutectic temperature is the lowest possible melting temperature over all of the mixing ratios for the involved component species.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

You invoked “ Limited Metallurgical Examination”

Now quote from it where temperatures reached 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) to melt structural steel? Quote where it states actual structural steel melted, not a “ eutectic mixture “.

The context of my 1130 Celsius.

The lowest temperature at which a plain carbon steel can begin to melt, its solidus, is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F). Steel never turns into a liquid below this temperature. Pure Iron ('Steel' with 0% Carbon) starts to melt at 1,492 °C (2,718 °F), and is completely liquid upon reaching 1,539 °C (2,802 °F). Steel with 2.1% Carbon by weight begins melting at 1,130 °C (2,070 °F), and is completely molten upon reaching 1,315 °C (2,399 °F). 'Steel' with more than 2.1% Carbon is no longer Steel, but is known as Cast iron.[15]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You said it yourself?

eutectic temperature! Which is a “ is a homogeneous mixture of substances that melts or solidifies at a single temperature that is lower than the melting point of either of the constituents.”

That “ approached 1,000 °C” which is not the melting point of structural steel, but the melting point of the eutectic mixture.

You are taking a FEMA document that states the steel was attacked by corrosion and created a strange eutectic mixture that melted below 1000C. Nowhere did it state unmolested steel free of chemical attack melted because structural steel reached its melting point of 1,130 °C (2,070 °F).

Is it a fact, one way of identifying substances is by melting point. The melting point of structural steel is 1,130 °C (2,070 °F) . That is scientific fact. If a substance melted before 1000C, then it did not have the composition of structural steel. It was something more like iron sulfate that has a lower melting point than structural steel.

Change 1130c to 1400C. You and the FEMA report both claim the fires were never greater than 1000C. You can identity a substance by melting point. If the substance melted before 1400C it wasn’t A 36 structural steel. It was a eutectic mixture created in the toxic soup that was the WTC pile with items like emergency lighting batteries leaking battery acid.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Again...

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

Someone please remind me.

What plane crash film was actually shown on television that day while the towers were still standing?

Was it ONLY the Fox helicopter video, the one shown from slightly above, where the plane comes into the tower from the right?

a reply to: neutronflux

Pictures of comparable WTC7 failed core columns to match your WTC5 theory is all i ask.

a reply to: neutronflux

Spotted this post from AE911 Facebook the other day:

This is the fourth forensic investigator that stated this looks like damage from a high explosive charge. Bummer,,, no pics??

accompanied with a link:

Scientific Fire Analysis

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

Pictures of comparable WTC7 failed core columns to match your WTC5 theory is all i ask.

One. You take my arguments out of context
Again, the actual context.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: democracydemo

You

The absence of shear studs in the NIST analysis

Ok.

This was the inquiry? In the context if enough floor connections along the height of a WTC 7 column failed due to thermal expansion, thermal contraction, thermal stress as witnessed in WTC 5, that column would buckle and start an internal progressive collapse.

Shear studs? How does that stop failures from thermal stress and expansion? Do buildings just need shear studs and not fire insulation for the steel? How many millions could be saved doing away with fire insulation!

Is it false WTC 5 had floor connection failures not related to being hit by debris? Did WTC 5 have shear studs?



I find this particular picture of a WTC 5 column interesting.

It’s column buckling to do with nothing related to shear studs?

You

Your link goes into this, read on. (not a spring system btw)

Then quote where the source is more supportive of your stance.

Is it false WTC 7 was undergoing an internal progressive collapse from one side of the building to the other before the facade movement?

Is it false as a whole, WTC 7 fell slower than the rate of free fall?

Is it false more accurate measurements of facade movement showed the facade moved at rates that are not explained by gravity, as in the facade was in a bind from the internal collapse.

You

My workputer is still on Windows 7, reason being none of the 10+ year sofware fuction on the newer ones.

How often does Windows 7 update? With there being at least one major service pack for Windows 7. Windows 7 was released in 2009. Windows 7 mainstream end of life was 2015. Windows 7 extended support for those willing to pay will end this year in 2020.

I hope where you work is still getting security updates for Windows 7? And swaps to newer computers by 2021.

What software was the NIST Model created on? What is the industrial standard for modeling now?

And you didn’t answer my inquiry

Access to data? Did NIST have access to drawings and video for their modeling that Hulsey did not have access to? Your angry because you don’t have access from data from the modeling of a software program that is now over 10 years old? What original program are you still using unchanged from 10 years ago? When the collapse of the actual building is on video accessible to the public?

Besides the numerous questions directed at yiu that you ignore...

Please post evidence that would have lead investigators to seriously look into thermite/explosives.

The collapse initiation of WTC 7 was relatively silent. There is at least two videos where the collapse initiation didn’t even interrupt normal conversation. There are no explosions with the ejection of demolition shrapnel before building movement. There is no audio of detonations with the force to cut steel columns. Supposedly from the truth movement, the vertical columns right at the WTC 7 facade and windows had to be cut at eight locations along each column. There is no video / audio evidence of any columns being cut by planted pyrotechnics.

There is nothing in the WTC 7 seismic evidence indicative of explosives causing the collapse. There is nothing in the seismic evidence that shows a sudden initiated collapse from eight pyrotechnic charges planted along the length of every vertical column simultaneously severing each column in the same instance as pushed by Hulsey. An event impossible for relativity slow and inconsistent burning cutting charges like thermite. If it was super thermite cutting columns by pressure wave, that brings one back to no evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns.

a reply to: democracydemo

By the way. Looks like something punched a hole that was exposed to moisture after the event.

There should be evidence in the metal grain boundary if the piece was exposed to the pressure and heat of an explosive.

Example of rod through engine block. A bit different. It’s the engine block is more hard but brittle

Your Engine Might Have Cracked Connecting Rods!
www.eeuroparts.com...

Metal cut by explosives by Mythbusters.


Notice the edges are grainy. Not mechanically punched.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

Someone please remind me.

What plane crash film was actually shown on television that day while the towers were still standing?

Was it ONLY the Fox helicopter video, the one shown from slightly above, where the plane comes into the tower from the right?

Sorry, I don't know the answer to your question, but what is certain is that the aircraft that hit the towers that day were not AA11 and UA175.

a reply to: Salander

Where did they go? And why were they tracked by radar to the towers. How did the passenger remains and crew remains end up at the towers? Where did the passengers and crew that boarded the flights end up?

Still pushing the same truth movement lies I see?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect

Someone please remind me.

What plane crash film was actually shown on television that day while the towers were still standing?

Was it ONLY the Fox helicopter video, the one shown from slightly above, where the plane comes into the tower from the right?

CNN:


NBC:


ABC:


There's also live coverage from FOX and CBS on there, the only footage of the impact shown live was when the second plane hit the South tower and this was caught by the majority of live coverage networks.

Things of note, one of the broadcasters actually managed to go live with someone trapped in the tower (North tower I think, who obviously later perished), can't remember their name or which broadcaster it was.

Additionally, another broadcaster, or possibly the same, think it's from one of the links above, broadcast a statement from Bin Laden which states something along the lines of "I am not responsible and this is something to do with elements from within your own government", trust me , it's in there somewhere

a reply to: neutronflux

Nissan engine block coupled with mythbusters.

Compared to real evidence in WTC steel.

Jet hole

Dale Pierce I'm a volunteer gathering evidence that is being presented to a federal grand jury in NYC. With support from the fire commissioners from the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department. This is steel from the WTC towers. You can see a presser jet impact on the lower lip with about a 3" jet forming a ring wave around it. justicefor911heroes.org...

Impact

This is on the inside of the box in a column that is 4" thick showing a high velocity impact into preheated malleable steel.

Impact

More impacts showing steel at malleable Temperatures.

a reply to: democracydemo

Sigh 😔

Metal cut by explosives should have an eroded / washed out look. With pitting and graining from high heat.
Like the examples from mythbusters that used charges to cut a steel bar, and punched a hole in a plate.




You referring to this picture?

An example of another piece of steel physically acting like a punch when it hit your pictured example. Where the edges in you example are cleaner. Have mechanical tearing. Showing no signs of being pitted and washed by a high temp pressure wave from an explosive.

The damage in your picture

Looks more like the damage of a rod being thrown through an engine block




And Looks nothing like a hole made by explosives



Or this might be a better example

Forklift driven through steel beam
www.reddit.com...

Your damage

a reply to: neutronflux

JET HOLE

Not penetration by an object. Do you understand?

originally posted by: democracydemo
a reply to: neutronflux

JET HOLE

Not penetration by an object. Do you understand?

What are you rambling about? I am not sure you would know your jet hole from a hole in the ground?

Shrugs?

Can you quote what the text book / scientific / technology trade definition of jet hole is? And how it’s applied in physics?

a reply to: democracydemo

You do understand there is a whole field of metallurgy? That describes what happens to metal in terms of grain boundary, or crystalline structure. And deals in defined failure modes of steel. Like brittle fracture, or fatigue?

What failure mode is jet hole? And how does it affect the grain boundary and crystalline structure of steel?

Can someone please explain to me the following.

At 1:10 impact - "Holy Sh.."
At 1:11 Less than one second after impact a cloud of dark grey smoke comes out of the top floor on the front and the top floor to the left. Look closely when the blowout on the top floor occurs.

How is that possible?

If you claim air pressure explain how such a blowout can occur with at least 20 floors between impact and the top floor.
Also the shock wave would need to travel all the way to the top of the building within one second.
Also if it is air pressure why would the cloud be dark gray? How can it be dark gray smoke?

There is simply not enough time between impact and the appearance of the dark grey blowout on the top floor.



To me it looks like "something" detonated at the top floor at the exact moment the plane struck.
Is there a HD version with audio somewhere?

a reply to: MoonMine

Could be anything from dust or roof covering shaken off from the structure being moved by a 200,000 lbs bullet. The way the smoke curled around the building. To the force of impact and explosion pushing smoke out air intakes. Or pushing out crap that settled in the air ducts over years.

Have a better explanation?

a reply to: neutronflux

The top blowout from the elevator shafts due to a precisely timed detonation of an incendiary device or devices in the central core at the exact moment the plane struck?

There seems simply not enough time for the shock wave to travel from the point of impact up through 20+ floors and blow out on the top floors front and left all within one second of impact.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
the only footage of the impact shown live was when the second plane hit the South tower and this was caught by the majority of live coverage networks.

Thank you. I have not paid attention to 911 for half a year, but the other day someone said they watched the plane hit the building that morning. Looks like I am going to have to take an hour or so to watch long videos to see what was actually shown live that day.

Because I seem to recall being told that ONLY the Fox helicopter footage was shown that day on LIVE TV. That differs with your post.

That of course would be HUGE if true. As you are probably aware, that particular Fox footage was shown to be fake, as it shows the nose of the plane coming out the other side of the tower looking just like it did before it went into the building. An impossibility in reality.

All the news networks filming the Tower fire that day should have caught different angles at once of the second plane crash. Guess I will have to watch it like it happened. Unless of course the crash scenes have been edited in AFTER the fact.

I did not watch it while it happened because I wanted to get more sleep before work that morning. And as we all knew before that morning, a plane could not make a building fall down.