Dr Hulsey WTC7 findings for people who not aware of this new study.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone. 

Would you be very surprised if you found that all the steel wasn't shipped away..

Let's say they kept some, in a warehouse, for the purposes of investigation - how would you spin that?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Is that not a problem when NIST was unable to find any steel from WTC7?
Why is it entire building collapses during a terrorist attack, first time for a steel beamed building in history to collapse due to just fire? And nobody decided we should keep steel to be look at it to find out what happened later. I find that strange a building seven was one of the tallest buildings in New York. There must be hundreds of tons of steel in the wreckage. Even if the FBI went looking for explosives later, the steel was gone. Your evidence for explosives used is gone. 

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Ok. So that one is a fraud.
Have you contacted ASCE about this?
I though you claimed that the ASCE were on your side perviously?

What about the other papers reference the NIST report. They all passed peer review.
Do you believe that all of those are fraudulent?


That is not what peer review is or means cheerful.

Real peer review is a very specific process involving publishing in journals AFTER the paper has been checked over by unbiased experts.

That is what Hulsey is avoiding. That is what he claimed his study would get. He lied. You believed him.
He is an expert. He knows doing that is dishonest and shady. But he's doing it anyway.
So by your logic, he is as much of a fraudulent expert as Dr Judy Wood.

ASCE management agreed with NIST.
ASCE members are members of the truth movement. 
When they get published? And what other papers about?
The progressive collapse scenario that NIST came up with could not have happened, end of story. Even two mainstream engineering studies in court did not side with NIST. There only single agreement is that fire played a role in the collapse. 

The AE911 movement believes controlled demolitions explains why the building collapsed. They are backed up by history and fire records. NIST had to invent a new fire collapse theory never seen in history before, and the theory is a joke.
I now the real world as it is, the mainstream engineering groups would never accept and publish this report based on words alone. The Hulsey conclusion, even though he stays away from it, but most people can see it controlled demolition. Now with the data they are have no real excuse not to look at it, but I Am realistic they may just ignore it unfortunately for political reasons, bias or funding reasons. 

Hulsey said he wanted his work published in respectable journals for peer review- since the report only in the draft stage and not the final report it not a big issue for me yet AE911 truth silent about what happening. They are taking public comments now and that will be completed in Nov. 

Dohnjoe

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

"Show me proof they kept the steel"

"Okay, how do we know that steel is from WTC?"

"If they only checked a few pieces of course they aren't going to find evidence of explosives, they need to check them all!"



See how we all get lured back into the "prove it to me" fallacy, whereby someone (Cheerful) can invent a neverending flow of demands to satisfy something they will never accept

Overheal

Well that's why I'm jumping ahead and trying to imagine how many dozens of acres of warehouse you'd need to house all that steel, concrete, human remains, etc. so people could spend the next 50 years cotton swabbing all over it hoping to find evidence of supernanothermite

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

ASCE management agreed with NIST.
ASCE members are members of the truth movement. 
blah blah waffle.

Cool. So why is the peer review fraudulent then?
Have you not called the ASCE to point out this massive smoking gun?

What about the dozens of other studies. Are they all fraudulent or not? Is the peer review of them fraudulent or not?

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey said he wanted his work published in respectable journals for perr review-  

I'm sure he does. Or at least he knows that sounds good.
However he's avoided doing that.
He had bypassed peer review because he wouldn't pass it.

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

since the report only in the draft stage and not the final report it not a big issue for me yet AE911 truth silent about what happening. They are taking public comments now and that will be completed in Nov. 

Again, this is not how peer review works. It's avoiding and bypassing peer review.
You have also been claiming that this pretend paper is perfect and 100% before it's even completed its silly pretend version of peer review.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Hulsey Study not avoiding peer review- because the data is freely available to be reviewed by their peers.

That's not how peer review works CS.
Its been explained to you multiple times already.
Peer review takes place before publication and is a vitally important part of academic validation.

Self publishing on the back of a cash call for post cards is AE911"s get out of jail free card for the next few weeks.
They will claim they sent thousands of post cards and received no negative response.
They won't have received any response because all they did was spam!

They deliberately avoided peer review and will try and portray that avoidance as it's being "accepted"

Dohnjoe

So I was looking around google and by chance found this, from an Irish engineering site

https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/cpd/training/Seminars%20temp/New%20Developments%20and%20Challenges%20in%20Fire%20Safety/Barbara-Lane.pdf

A training seminar on fire damage using 911 as a demonstration

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

It didn't just disappear overnight though. It took 8 months to clear the site and involved thousands upon thousands of people. That none of them found a bomb, or bomb casings, or bomb making materials, detonators, detcord, or any evidence of any of such, is good enough for me. Also, I'm not sure where you would have proposed the rubble from WTC be transported to (and at what staggering cost) so it could be interred for - a decade, for truthers to get around to funding a fishing expedition for trace evidence of explosives? The WTC was 930,000,000 kilograms of steel and concrete, before you include any office material - or corpses, or human remains. I can only imagine what kind of interment site would have been required to sift through that much material to test it for a wild hunch that there might have been a conspiracy involving the Jews and the Iranians to blow up the world trade center, and that the planes that crashed into the buildings were just for show.

In reality we do know that steel from the towers was taken away - many people kept pieces as mementos, or even sold them. People are still trying to sell pieces they smuggled off with. https://www.ebay.com/itm/World-Trade-Center-Recovered-Steel-Composite-Piece-9-11-Ground-Zero-LQQK/184004074838?hash=item2ad77f5d56:g:s1sAAOSwIqJdrkK2. The movie 12 strong dramatized the actual burial of a piece of the steel in Afghanistan by the special forces that were the tip of the spear counter-attacking the Taliban via marking targets for smart bomb strikes

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.
I have seen only one picture of workers in the area and this was just after the building collapsed.
There nothing showing what happened there after the collapse.
We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.
You thinking of twin towers- there plenty of photographs of this clean up on different days. 
Demolition experts said you find very little evidence cutting charges were used after the explosion went off- The charge blows up in the explosion. If the building wired, you may find det core pieces- but even in 2001 demolition charges can set off wirelessly. It is not used by commercial demolition crews because it expensive to use. For a military-style operation cost is irrevent if pulling off inside job. They're likely going to be doings things to mask this was demolition job. 

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7.
I have seen only one picture of workers in the area and this was just after the building collapsed.
There nothing showing what happened there after the collapse.
We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.
You thinking of twin towers- there plenty of photographs of this clean up on different days. 
Demolition experts said you find very little evidence cutting charges were used after the explosion went off- The charge blows up in the explosion. If the building wired, you may find det core pieces- but even in 2001 demolition charges can set off wirelessly. It is not used by commercial demolition crews because it expensive to use. For a military-style operation cost is irrevent if pulling off inside job. They're likely going to be doings things to mask this was demolition job. 

So why did they hide the steel?
.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

We don't know where the steel went and what country took it.

They took all the steel?

Where did it go?

How quickly did they take it all away?

Cheerful Spring2

banie01 wrote: »

That's not how peer review works CS.
Its been explained to you multiple times already.
Peer review takes place before publication and is a vitally important part of academic validation.

Self publishing on the back of a cash call for post cards is AE911"s get out of jail free card for the next few weeks.
They will claim they sent thousands of post cards and received no negative response.
They won't have received any response because all they did was spam!

They deliberately avoided peer review and will try and portray that avoidance as it's being "accepted"

Banie do you accept a study based on just words alone?
Science only works if the data you provide can be replicated by others in the field.
NIST wrote a letter they will not release, their input data, calculations and modelling data. Its a letter you can find online.
You simply don't understand science and how works in real world.
Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
They're not architects and engineers so they not counted. They are scientists who understand you must provide data in any work to be taken seriously.#
You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality. 

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

They took all the steel?

Where did it go?

How quickly did they take it all away?

Nobody knows.
We have a statement by NIST they could not locate during their investigation.
We have one piece FEMA had and was melted with holes. It part of steel flange, we don't know where in the building it came from.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality. 

Cheerful, this is exactly what hulsey has done.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
 

Scientists like Dr Judy Woods, architects like Gage who suggests that explosives were planted in WTC as it was being built, those kind of people?

Speaking of Gage, last time he had a vote to reinvestigate 911 at AIA, 4000 architects voted against it, that right there trumps these 3k "engineers and architects"

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Nobody knows.

If you don't know, then how are you assuming every scrap of it shipped away?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Banie do you accept a study based on just words alone?
Science only works if the data you provide can be replicated by others in the field.
NIST wrote a letter they will not release, their input data, calculations and modelling data. Its a letter you can find online.
You simply don't understand science and how works in real world.
Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
They're not architects and engineers so they not counted. They are scientists who understand you must provide data in any work to be taken seriously.#
You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality 

Irony of ironies

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Banie do you accept a study based on just words alone?
Science only works if the data you provide can be replicated by others in the field.
NIST wrote a letter they will not release, their input data, calculations and modelling data. Its a letter you can find online.
You simply don't understand science and how works in real world.
Lot of scientists have signed up to AE911 truth movement and voiced this opinion.
They're not architects and engineers so they not counted. They are scientists who understand you must provide data in any work to be taken seriously.#
You accepted NIST study because some engineering groups published their work- yet this could be because their friends and associates and they have just accepted their version of the truth. This corruption is how world works in reality. 

So the entire academic and scientific peer review process is both corrupt and involved in perpetuating the conspiracy?

Hulsey and AE911 are saving the world from that broken system by avoiding it?

You surely aren't this naïve?
That you can't see what is happening with how this has been managed?

Don't go down the road of credentials or experience or scientific understanding CS.
We have been over that repeatedly with you, I and others have discussed our experience, our qualifications and indeed our limitations in critiquing scientific papers, a discussion which may have occured funnily enough around the time you went and got a 1 month ban.

1 "expert" self publishing a paper and deliberately circumventing peer review in a manner that his acolytes make it seem he is actually being ignored!

Does not scientific fact or consensus make.

Dohnjoe

banie01 wrote: »

So the entire academic and scientific peer review process is both corrupt and involved in perpetuating the conspiracy?

So there we have it, we have reached the final frontier, academia is now a conspiracy

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Yet there only one picture of this clean up at WTC7. 

I’m looking at 2 right now, actually, and that’s before I trawl through thousands of photos just in this one archive alone: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7185067/Incredible-never-seen-images-Ground-Zero-clean-operation.html

Not to mention the countless photographs that thousands of people took of the sites in much the same manner that I don’t have rapid access to.

Cheerful Spring2

King Mob wrote: »

Cheerful, this is exactly what hulsey has done.

I would see it that way if they refused to publish their data. The data is there for everyone to use now. Engineering groups can see what he did for 4 years and not buying your excuse the study not transparent when the data out for everyone to try to replicate themselves . Mick West downloading it. Just accept the fact Ae911 truth is honest about this and did not try to hide what they did. 600 gigs of data is a lot of work- so it is obvious they were doing real work here for years and not pretending. If the study flawed, go find the issues with it and we can debate it. 

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

I’m looking at 2 right now, actually, and that’s before I trawl through thousands of photos just in this one archive alone: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7185067/Incredible-never-seen-images-Ground-Zero-clean-operation.html

Not to mention the countless photographs that thousands of people took of the sites in much the same manner that I don’t have rapid access to.

I don't see them. I see WTC5 and towers wreckage? Can you number the photos you see down the page?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would see it that way if they refused to publish their data. The data is there for everyone to use now. Engineering groups can see what he did for 4 years and not buying your excuse the study not transparent when the data out for everyone to try to replicate themselves . Mick West downloading it. Just accept the fact Ae911 truth is honest about this and did not try to hide what they did. 600 gigs of data is a lot of work- so it is obvious they were doing real work here for years and not pretending. If the study flawed, go find the issues with it and we can debate it. 

That was already done over a month ago.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I would see it that way if they refused to publish their data. The data is there for everyone to use now. Engineering groups can see what he did for 4 years and not buying your excuse the study not transparent when the data out for everyone to try to replicate themselves . Mick West downloading it. Just accept the fact Ae911 truth is honest about this and did not try to hide what they did. 600 gigs of data is a lot of work- so it is obvious they were doing real work here for years and not pretending. If the study flawed, go find the issues with it and we can debate it. 

But why not do real peer review like a real scientist?
Why do it in a way that offers no oversight and seems to get a lot of money in the pocket?

They weren't transparent however. They did not release the information during the process like the promised and there appears to be things they are covering up. They are also not being transparent about their review process.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

That was already done over a month ago.

Mick West work?
Mick West a known liar he got exposed so many times i have given up on him. He goes around claiming Hulsey left out stuff study in his report and yet people are finding the paragraphs in the Hulsey report refuting his allegations. Its hilarious stuff to be honest. Mick West controls the narrative on Metabunk, he only allows posts to be posted after he edits them first. It not a website for free discussion.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I don't see them. I see WTC5 and towers wreckage? Can you number the photos you see down the page?

Just read the captions. Contrary to your claim, at least 2 of the 2,000+ photos in that archive depict the cleanup of WTC 7

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Just read the captions. Contrary to your claim, at least 2 of the 2,000+ photos in that archive depict the cleanup of WTC 7

I see two, but it same view one taken at night and one in the day. It mainly a picture of building six and building seven just in the picture. To the left was WTC7 but mostly see just dirt a few cranes near it. The steel mostly gone at this stage. I wonder when this was taken?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Mick West work?
Mick West a known liar he got exposed so many times i have given up on him. He goes around claiming Hulsey left out stuff study in his report and yet people are finding the paragraphs in the Hulsey report refuting his allegations. Its hilarious stuff to be honest. Mick West controls the narrative on Metabunk, he only allows posts to be posted after he edits them first. It not a website for free discussion.

Anyone who doesn't agree with your wild and unique conspiracy is a sham or a liar or not an expert or in on the conspiracy or whatever

Ever thought how that comes across..

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I see two, but it same view one taken at night and one in the day. It mainly a picture of building six and building seven just in the picture. To the left was WTC7 but mostly see just dirt a few cranes near it. The steel mostly gone at this stage. I wonder when this was taken?

Between September 12, 2001 and May 2002.

You claimed as evidence that only 1 WTC photo exists- you haven’t provided this photo, I assume it is different than the two photos I linked to directly, and is probably different from the countless others that are also from that CD.

There seem to be multiple photos of the WTC 7 wreckage.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't agree with your wild and unique conspiracy is a sham or a liar or not an expert or in on the conspiracy or whatever

Ever thought how that comes across..

He lies about what Hulsey said in the report. I respect Mick take on if he was truthful about it. He leaves out stuff as if Hulsey never explained it and then when told his wrong, he ignores it. That i will not accept sorry. It ok to be critical about study, its another thing to lie.
Do you want me to give you examples of Mick dishonesty?

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Between September 12, 2001 and May 2002.

You claimed as evidence that only 1 WTC photo exists- you haven’t provided this photo, I assume it is different than the two photos I linked to directly, and is probably different from the countless others that are also from that CD.

There seem to be multiple photos of the WTC 7 wreckage.

I have only seen one photograph; this is another one accepted ( same photograph with day and night cycle. It still not a photograph on the ground showing the workers removing the steel on top of a pile. All i see is dirt and cranes. I looking for a photograph that we see the condition of the steel when removed. If you find that i be very happy:)

What happened to steel and why nobody kept some of it back is the issue.

King Mob

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Do you want me to give you examples of Mick dishonesty?

Cheerful, just because he has written something that you don't understand it doesn't mean he's lying.
It just means you don't understand technical terms, basic math and physics and have trouble with reading comprehension.

Lying would be like saying that a studying is going to be open and transparent then doing what Hulsey did.

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

He lies about what Hulsey said in the report. I respect Mick take on if he was truthful about it. He leaves out stuff as if Hulsey never explained it and then when told his wrong, he ignores it. That i will not accept sorry. It ok to be critical about study, its another thing to lie.
Do you want me to give you examples of Mick dishonesty?

Why are you avoiding the earlier questions

You claim the steel all went somewhere, what is your basis for that claim?

Dohnjoe

I am perplexed with this steel obsession, I don't recall Hulsey having any access to steel..

He seems to get cut a suspiciously large amount of slack, while every one else is held up to much, much higher standards. Strange that.

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Why are you avoiding the earlier questions

You claim the steel all went somewhere, what is your basis for that claim?

If the steel was still available NIST would have said so. They said they could not locate it. Only government agency that retrieved steel from the site was FEMA in 2002. Their steel piece had undergone some unusual process of corrosion or melting. We discussed it before. First the claim the steel had evaporated, and they could not explain it. Next tests showed it melted in a hot environment and it reduced, melting point of steel because of high sulphur content they found. They could not find reasons for this high sulphur being present on the steel.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

I have only seen one photograph; this is another one accepted ( same photograph with day and night cycle. It still not a photograph on the ground showing the workers removing the steel on top of a pile. All i see is dirt and cranes. I looking for a photograph that we see the condition of the steel when removed. If you find that i be very happy:)

What happened to steel and why nobody kept some of it back is the issue.

There’s 9/11 steel on eBay right now.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

There’s 9/11 steel on eBay right now.

Sure you can. Everyone would like to see the condition of the steel at WTC7 though.

The FEMA study still leaves many unanswered questions. In their scenario, the steel melted at above 1000c at WTC7 site and only melted below 1500c due to high sulphar content.

FEMA said more studies need to be done to find the source of the sulphar. NIST ignored the issue and never discussed it. Even though FEMA was finding this odd melting had occurred.

NIST even said no steel melted, that factually incorrect. When steel has holes in it, the steel had to have melted.

Overheal

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-world-trade-center-steel-20150909-story.html

This stuff is not hard to find.

Overheal

We’ve been forwards and backwards about the melting of steel and I don’t see anything constructive about re re re re educating you about the basic principles of metallurgy. You choose to believe what you want to believe, but I still haven’t seen any smoking gun for your controlled demolition theory.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-world-trade-center-steel-20150909-story.html

This stuff is not hard to find.

It blocked in European countries, not available.

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

We’ve been forwards and backwards about the melting of steel and I don’t see anything constructive about re re re re educating you about the basic principles of metallurgy. You choose to believe what you want to believe, but I still haven’t seen any smoking gun for your controlled demolition theory.

FEMA Appendix C introduction:
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.

I was correct 1000c
Sulphar reduced the melting point of steel from 1500c.

banie01

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It blocked in European countries, not available.

Surely a conspiracy research expert such as yourself is using a VPN or Tor?
You can't honestly expect us to believe that you would put your personal data and security at risk by relying on those evil telecoms and social media companies to route your data in the clear?

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

FEMA Appendix C introduction:
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.

I was correct 1000c
Sulphar reduced the melting point of steel from 1500c.

Yes as I said, I tried several times in good faith to explain to you this doesn’t mean what you think it means. I am not motivated to repeat myself, again. Only to say that the phenomenon being discussed only happens on the microscopic level, only affected the “skin” of the object, and is not a melting behavior that can be achieved in the bulk material properties of scale - ie. This type of sulfidation could not be used to melt the columns of a steel building in mere seconds.

OwlsZat

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

Overheal

OwlsZat wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

Well, the towers fell because two jumbo jets crashed into them.

I’m assuming, since 2010, the guest lecturer’s academic argument hasn’t made it through peer review.

Dohnjoe

OwlsZat wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

A mate's friend met an old chap in the pub who swears that we didn't land on the moon, the shadows weren't right, something about radiation belts and some guy called Van Allen

Cheerful Spring2

Overheal wrote: »

Yes as I said, I tried several times in good faith to explain to you this doesn’t mean what you think it means. I am not motivated to repeat myself, again. Only to say that the phenomenon being discussed only happens on the microscopic level, only affected the “skin” of the object, and is not a melting behavior that can be achieved in the bulk material properties of scale - ie. This type of sulfidation could not be used to melt the columns of a steel building in mere seconds.

The steel disappeared from one side to other turned side. That hardly just surface damage.  You can see right through it all gone, all you see is holes. Even FEMA said that effect unusual and not what they expected to see occur in a fire.  The claim is the liquid of sulphur penetrated the steel grain boundaries and started the process of erosion and corrosion. It's a theory they think occurred based on what they found. Still, they had no clear explanation to explain wherein the building the sulphur originated from.  Plus, they said this event could only have occurred in a 1000c hot environment. They're no fires that got that hot in WTC7 and NIST highest temp was 600c ( they increasing it to support their version. The sulphur may be left over from what happened inside the building. Would the liquid sulphur be a byproduct of an explosion at the columns? It had to come from somewhere the sulphar. 

banie01

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A mate's friend met an old chap in the pub who swears that we didn't land on the moon, the shadows weren't right, something about radiation belts and some guy called Van Allen

My mates sister's boyfriend's second cousin twice removed swears Elvis works down the chip shop...
It is yet to be peer reviewed, but he has a very honest face by all accounts.

Cheerful Spring2

OwlsZat wrote: »

Not sure if anyone else can corroborate but my cousins wife was is DIT architecture class circa 2010. They had lots of guest lecturers. Remember her telling us all one guest speakers was involved in the design of the twin towers. He swore blind the super heated jet fuel nonsense was just that. Said one of the design requirements of the building was that it wouldn't fall specifically in the case of fire. Swore it was scientifically impossible they way it was suggested by mainstream media.

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

The claim is fires brought it down not the planes. NIST got around this by claiming that the fireproofing was knocked off at the steel core. One building came down in 45 minutes, impossible with fireproofing that holds for three hours. That theory unprovable because the fireproofing would have just disappeared during the collapse and when in the rubble burning away. So NIST saw fireproofing was missing from steel so they used it to make the claim the plane knocked off the fireproofing allowing to burn hotter.

Overheal

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

It's true they designed it to withstand two or three commercial airliners hitting at the same time. This is what the designers of the building said on video.

Lol