Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Have you read the FEMA study?

The one I ask you to quote, and you don’t?

You

They certainly found WTC7 that experienced a melting process

Ok? Then cite what your posting about?

How would a building full of plastic, solder, copper, lead have pure liquid anything?

You

They had a position it was generated by 1000c heat+ sulphar.

What temperature does steel melt at?

You

It's a concept that never been demonstrated that sulfur would diminish the melting point of WTC7 steel by 500C

Iron(II) sulfate
en.m.wikipedia.org...(II)_sulfate

Melting point 680 c

You

We have solid evidence the melting can only have happened inside the building as the high temp is essential.

That big ball of various corrosion products?

Please post an actual picture of steel that formed a liquid pool then solidified?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

And you ignored...

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quick example. Sodium chloride has a melting point is 801 C. But you can dissolve salt in room temperature water.

Whatever happened to the the guys onboard this plane?
whyy.org...

It sounds like there was further hijackers then the 19.
If there was evidence for a cover up this is it.
How can men escape when all the 19 other guys are using the identifications on their visas and passports.
Why was effectively no media reporting about this?
It sounds like the failed when the planes got grounded. 
With WTC7 being a controlled demolition was it a target for a plane strike? Smashing the plane into the building high up and demolishing?
The fact the government silent about it means there covering up a bigger operation that failed. The last thing you want is detecting the people who did and they spilling the beans it was a false flag attack by a criminal enterprise. 

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quick example. Sodium chloride has a melting point is 801 C. But you can dissolve salt in room temperature water.

Why you forming strange theories that are not correct? We realize by the chemical work done what transpired. The steel was exposed to very high heat+ sulfar.  Debunkers like to waffle about other chemicals when there no evidence.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quick example. Sodium chloride has a melting point is 801 C. But you can dissolve salt in room temperature water.

Why you forming strange theories that are not correct? We realize by the chemical work done what transpired. The steel was exposed to very high heat+ sulfar.  Debunkers like to waffle about other chemicals when there no evidence.

Correct about what? Your not posting cited evidence of melted steel. You keep referring to a FEMA report that you will not quote, cite, and link to?

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quick example. Sodium chloride has a melting point is 801 C. But you can dissolve salt in room temperature water.

Why you forming strange theories that are not correct? We realize by the chemical work done what transpired. The steel was exposed to very high heat+ sulfar.  Debunkers like to waffle about other chemicals when there no evidence.

Correct about what? Your not posting cited evidence of melted steel. You keep referring to a FEMA report that you will not quote, cite, and link to?

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Official mainstream steel study.
www.fema.gov...

Read C6 and ask yourself why did NIST ignore this?

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quick example. Sodium chloride has a melting point is 801 C. But you can dissolve salt in room temperature water.

Why you forming strange theories that are not correct? We realize by the chemical work done what transpired. The steel was exposed to very high heat+ sulfar.  Debunkers like to waffle about other chemicals when there no evidence.

Correct about what? Your not posting cited evidence of melted steel. You keep referring to a FEMA report that you will not quote, cite, and link to?

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Official mainstream steel study.
www.fema.gov...

So there is nothing in the what you linked to that supports your mythology?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Now. Do you have evidence of liquid steel pooling and solidifying?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Quick example. Sodium chloride has a melting point is 801 C. But you can dissolve salt in room temperature water.

Why you forming strange theories that are not correct? We realize by the chemical work done what transpired. The steel was exposed to very high heat+ sulfar.  Debunkers like to waffle about other chemicals when there no evidence.

Correct about what? Your not posting cited evidence of melted steel. You keep referring to a FEMA report that you will not quote, cite, and link to?

There wouldn’t be pure molten anything in a building full of materials with lower melting points.

And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Official mainstream steel study.
www.fema.gov...

So there is nothing in the what you linked to that supports your mythology?

You a funny guy, and I truly am wondering why I bother replying to you. Read it and point out what part I was wrong about?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Why do the pictures of the items in the study still hold their manufactured geometry if they were melted?

Is the steel in the picture below from WTC 5 “melted”?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Why do the pictures of the items in the study still hold their manufactured geometry if they were melted?

Is the steel in the picture below from WTC 5 “melted”?

It twisted.

Did WTC5 fall down into its own footprint? You have localized failures of floors induced by a severe jolt of tower wreckage hitting it. How come this failure of floors did not cause a progressive collapse? NIST's entire theory for WTC7 is based around just one column failing and it then dropping the entire structure. Think about how ridiculous that is, that you collapse an entire building by sliding a single girder off its seat!

Truthers get way too much hate. FEMA themselves were shocked by this.



Unusual event- means rare or perhaps never seen before!
They could not identify the rate of corrosion- that speculating based on fire scenario.
Either way that melting occured inside the building and that means it was done in hours, not weeks, or months.
They even call it a phenomenon!
They even said a detailed study was needed to determine the risk. Never happened.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What building fell in its own footprint?

Damage from WTC 7 from falling outside it’s four print.



And you claiming “melted” steel from a FEMA report who’s pictured thin metal pieces held their original manufactured geometry. With no signs of actually being deformed by heat. They only show signs of a wasting corrosion.

Any more false arguments?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You do know corrosion is not melting? Right? If the samples were “melted” why are they still holding the geometry of their manufactured shape. They show no signs of being deformed by heat.

Unless you mean “melting” the way water “melts” sugar candy?

Now
And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

What building fell in its own footprint?

Damage from WTC 7 from falling outside it’s four print.

And you claiming “melted” steel from a FEMA report who’s pictured thin metal pieces held their original manufactured geometry. With no signs of actually being deformed by heat. They only show signs of a wasting corrosion.

Any more false arguments?

I showed you a large WTC7 steel piece that was melted on the back of the truck. 



We can only see certain photographs that got published online. There is clear evidence steel at WTC7 got melted. The fact is most of WTC7 was never photographed again after it got removed. 

Are you really going to claim 500c+ sulfur melted the steel?
When the requirement is 1500c high temp to melt steel?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You do know corrosion is not melting? Right? If the samples were “melted” why are they still holding the geometry of their manufactured shape. They show no signs of being deformed by heat.

Unless you mean “melting” the way water “melts” sugar candy?

Now
And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Can you read?

a reply to: Hulseyreport



The metal is not melted because the piece of structure held its shape through the corrosive attack.
The piece shows no signs of being physical deformed by heat. Only being altered by a chemical attack.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

You do know corrosion is not melting? Right? If the samples were “melted” why are they still holding the geometry of their manufactured shape. They show no signs of being deformed by heat.

Unless you mean “melting” the way water “melts” sugar candy?

Now
And your ignoring:

No. It’s truth movement mythology. There is no evidence the WTC Pile was hot enough to support liquid steel. There was no reported violent steam releases when the pile was being sprayed with water from water encountering liquid steel. There was no frozen pools of steel found during cleanup.

There is zero evidence of melted steel. Steel attacked by sulfur resulting in a compound with a lower melting point than steel, yes.

Can you read?

Then cite the report where it said the steel was melted.

You don’t know how to quote?

C.3 SummaryforSample1
1. The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
2. Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
3. The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.

www.fema.gov...

You never did cite the melting point of structural steel?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You do understand corrosion is different than melting?