To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Overheal · 12-03-2019 06:03PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Kingmob needs to get a grip.

Why is replication important in science?
Getting the same result when an experiment is repeated is called replication. If research results can be replicated, it means they are more likely to be correct. Replication is important in science so scientists can “check their work.”

NIST refused to release their work.

This is partly why I’m interested in whether Hulsey has made public his computer modeling files?

Overheal · 12-03-2019 06:08PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Do you not understand the fires in WTC7 never got to the point of melting steel according to NIST? There highest range was 600c. 900c below the temp required.

FEMA just by luck got a piece of the steel and had melted. We know the steel was blasted by a source of heat that got this high.

Nanothermite produces high heat and energy to melt steel.

No you’re just repeating what we already debunked last week: the piece wasn’t melted, what it had was “intergranular melting” at its defeated surface. The FEMA report is pretty plain about that. The melting phenomena seen was literally at the micron level, not at the part level. The steel component itself had not been melted off. They only found micro-level points of melting at the surface where the piece was ripped apart during the collapse. There was phosphorous and sulphur present in the steel itself to catalyze this reaction at the crystalline level.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:09PM

Overheal wrote: »

This is partly why I’m interested in whether Hulsey has made public his computer modeling files?

Yep finally. The full report just completed is going to be out soon. They're sending it out to universities to be peer-reviewed. Yes, his going to release everything to the public there be full transparency. The computer modelling files will be released. Dr Hulsey has already said his computer model looks the actual collapse.

12-03-2019 06:10PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

They're sending it out to universities to be peer-reviewed. .

This is not how peer review works.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:12PM

Overheal wrote: »

No you’re just repeating what we already debunked last week: the piece wasn’t melted, what it had was “intergranular melting” at its defeated surface. The FEMA report is pretty plain about that. The melting phenomena seen was literally at the micron level, not at the part level. The steel component itself had not been melted off. They only found micro-level points of melting at the surface where the piece was ripped apart during the collapse. There was phosphorous and sulphur present in the steel itself to catalyze this reaction at the crystalline level.

Did you not notice the chunks of steel missing? How does a low temp fire do this explain?

Overheal · 12-03-2019 06:13PM

I told you Molten Steel when melted is Molten Iron ( 95 per cent Iron) you kept denying it.

this is a very misleading and factually incorrect statement. There’s a reason steel is steel and iron is iron, and why there are hundreds of classifications and recipes and spec sheets for different types of steel. That 5% may not sound like a lot but without trying to throw a material science book at you, it matters a lot. Steel has differing material properties to iron including a lower melting point. If it didn’t have differing properties we wouldn’t bother with its manufacture.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:14PM

Overheal ignores these are holes in the steel.

Overheal · 12-03-2019 06:15PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you not notice the chunks of steel missing? How does a low temp fire do this explain?

Chunks of steel missing can be caused as part of a catastrophic structural failure - like a collapse of a building.

Both phosphorous and sulphur are very reactive substances in isolation - the kind of isolation that can occur at the microscopic level...

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:15PM

Overheal wrote: »

this is a very misleading and factually incorrect statement. There’s a reason steel is steel and iron is iron, and why there are hundreds of classifications and recipes and spec sheets for different types of steel. That 5% may not sound like a lot but without trying to throw a material science book at you, it matters a lot. Steel has differing material properties to iron including a lower melting point. If it didn’t have differing properties we wouldn’t bother with its manufacture.

You explain the liquid Molten Iron FEMA found? Did it come from the steel?

12-03-2019 06:16PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You explain the liquid Molten Iron FEMA found?

Source?
I think you are telling fibs again.

The Nal · 12-03-2019 06:17PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You explain the liquid Molten Iron FEMA found? Did it come from the steel?

Can you explain how they got into the buildings and placed nano thermite across 77 floors without anyone noticing?

Dohnjoe · 12-03-2019 06:17PM

weisses wrote: »

But the crowd you are hailing as good architects disagrees

Which crowd and how do they believe the building fell?

The building fell due to fire/thermal expansion (it also sustained debris damage), is there an alternative credible explanation out there as to how the building fell?

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:19PM

King Mob wrote: »

Source?
I think you are telling fibs again.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

The Nal · 12-03-2019 06:19PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Which crowd and how do they believe the building fell?

The building fell due to fire/thermal expansion (it also sustained debris damage), is there an alternative credible explanation out there as to how the building fell?

Apparently the best one so far is that 8 guys did it over a weekend, across 77 floors in 3 secure buildings and no one noticed.

Dohnjoe · 12-03-2019 06:21PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you not notice the chunks of steel missing? How does a low temp fire do this explain?

Why aren't you explaining how the building fell with proper evidence?

That's what this thread is for. Why are the "truthers" in here so allergic to this basic concept?

You claim it was "blown up" by Larry Silverstein, cool, explain how it was done. How they rigged it, who rigged it, how they pulled it off

12-03-2019 06:21PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

That link does not support your claim. No where does it mention finding molten iron.

Fibs are bad cheerful.
Bold!

Overheal · 12-03-2019 06:22PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Yes that’s the same study. That’s not a glob of molten steel.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:24PM

King Mob wrote: »

That link does not support your claim. No where does it mention finding molten iron.

Fibs are bad cheerful.
Bold!

It does liquid Iron is not solid., it has melted.

12-03-2019 06:25PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

It does liquid Iron is not solid., it has melted.

It does not mention finding liquid iron either.
Please quote the part you are referring to.

I think that's what you meant. You are becoming less coherent again.
Please try to write more clearly.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:28PM

King Mob wrote: »

It does not mention finding liquid iron either.
Please quote the part you are referring to.

I think that's what you meant. You are becoming less coherent again.
Please try to write more clearly.

Not by fault you can be bothered to read.
C.2 SAMPLE 1 read the end part. The Liquid was Iron and Sulpar.

12-03-2019 06:31PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not by fault you can be bothered to read.
C.2 SAMPLE 1 read the end part. The Liquid was Iron and Sulpar.

Are you referring to the part that mentions liquidifed steel
:rolleyes:

Also, what is sulpar?
That is not a substance I've heard of before...

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:32PM

King Mob wrote: »

Are you referring to the part that mentions liquidifed steel
:rolleyes:

Read it take your time.

12-03-2019 06:34PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Read it take your time.

Again, no mention of them finding molten liquid iron.
You were telling fibs.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 06:35PM

King Mob wrote: »

Again, no mention of them finding molten liquid iron.
You were telling fibs.

:rolleyes:

12-03-2019 06:38PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Yes, that will address the point.

You lied. You aren't able to understand a complicated scientific paper as you are completely ignorant of science and you have trouble reading English.

You saw some words in the paper you recognised and latched onto them as if they prove your very silly theory and you ignore everything else.

Again, you are not painting yourself and the conspiracy theory in a good light.

Overheal · 12-03-2019 06:38PM

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Not by fault you can be bothered to read.
C.2 SAMPLE 1 read the end part. The Liquid was Iron and Sulpar.

C3. Part was corroded by oxidation and sulfidation. The high heats experienced created a eutectic mix of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that caused intergranualar melting, further accelerating the hot corrosion of the steel.

Note that even though they did an EDX spectral analysis they did not find evidence of Aluminum present, which would be necessary to begin to suggest that thermite was involved.

Thermite is a mix of 2Al+2FeO3. There should be a significant presence of Al2O3 post reaction.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-03-2019 06:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

C3. Part was corroded by oxidation and sulfidation. The high heats experienced created a eutectic mix of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that caused intergranualar melting, further accelerating the hot corrosion of the steel.

Note that even though they did an EDX spectral analysis they did not find evidence of Aluminum present, which would be necessary to begin to suggest that thermite was involved.

Thermite is a mix of 2Al+2FeO3. There should be a significant presence of Al2O3 post reaction.

Ah c'mon! We ALL know super nano-thermite(mate?) Is aluminium free :rolleyes:

The Nal · 12-03-2019 06:52PM

Overheal wrote: »

C3. Part was corroded by oxidation and sulfidation. The high heats experienced created a eutectic mix of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that caused intergranualar melting, further accelerating the hot corrosion of the steel.

Note that even though they did an EDX spectral analysis they did not find evidence of Aluminum present, which would be necessary to begin to suggest that thermite was involved.

Thermite is a mix of 2Al+2FeO3. There should be a significant presence of Al2O3 post reaction.

I love when he only skims reads "evidence" and it ends up debunking his own theory! Its fabulous to watch. I've said it before, he should charge people to read his posts.

Overheal · 12-03-2019 07:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, that will address the point.

You lied. You aren't able to understand a complicated scientific paper as you are completely ignorant of science and you have trouble reading English.

You saw some words in the paper you recognised and latched onto them as if they prove your very silly theory and you ignore everything else.

Again, you are not painting yourself and the conspiracy theory in a good light.

There’s a lot about this post too that falls below the line for fair criticisms. This goes past challenging someone’s understanding of the paper to straight attacking them as ignorant and illiterate with regards to English.

Cheerful Spring · 12-03-2019 07:32PM

Overheal wrote: »

C3. Part was corroded by oxidation and sulfidation. The high heats experienced created a eutectic mix of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that caused intergranualar melting, further accelerating the hot corrosion of the steel.

Note that even though they did an EDX spectral analysis they did not find evidence of Aluminum present, which would be necessary to begin to suggest that thermite was involved.

Thermite is a mix of 2Al+2FeO3. There should be a significant presence of Al2O3 post reaction.

Aluminium oxide is a byproduct of a thermite reaction. To melt Aluminium oxide you need temps of over 2000c. They would never see this in the liquid. They did find manganese though. If they did more testing they may have found the slag run off but the steel was laying in rubble for days could have disappeared in this time.

Another problem the red/grey nano-thermite chips were found in WTC dust. They may have only been used in the Tower destructions. I just speculating they were used to melt the steel in WTC7, could be wide of the mark. I still don't believe a low office temp can melt steel.

To those who believe WTC 7 didn't fall due to fire, how did it fall?

Comments