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.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It blocked in European countries, not available.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Dohnjoe wrote: »
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. 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.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Can you please post a CREDIBLE source for this claim please?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
“The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So not what you claimed at all? How are people supposed to take your claims seriously when you continue to post lies, half truths and put your own spin on what they actually say?
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Only one plane crashed at each tower. He claims 707 jet would do nothing and explains why. 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11. He said he believes multiple plane impacts would also have no effect. Posted no lies, i just posted what guy claimed would have happened.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » . 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11.
Overheal wrote: » You posted deliberately misleading information. You presented it as a fact that the towers were designed to withstand 3 simultaneous airliner strikes. The reality is that was merely the belief of one person; the buildings were only designed for a single plane scenario at most.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » It's he believe it can withstand multiple plane impacts at the same time. He would have said only one impact- yet he said multiple means over one. Yes, but he was on site construction manager. It's his claim not mine. You asking me to ignore his opinion why?
banie01 wrote: » Cheerful, why do you constantly lie? The 707 is not a bigger aircraft. The energy potential of any impact is based on the weight and speed of the aircraft on impact. The 707 is a 1st generation narrow body airliner, that albeit 4 engined is a narrow body aircraft. With a significantly lower fuel capacity, Lower empty and take off weights and lower Passenger capacity. The 767 is a significantly larger aircraft. The whole impact calculation is predicated on weight and speed. Also as has been explained to you previously in detail, the Towers were never designed to cope with the impact loads or resultant damage of a high speed deliberate impact.
banie01 wrote: » It's also worth remembering the single plane scenario they were designed for was a low speed flaps deployed impact of a "lost" plane on a landing approach. There a world of difference between a nose high attitude jetliner impacting a Tower than there is with a jetliner of any type, hitting a Tower with the throttles firewalled at 490mph+ The energy involved in the 2nd scenario is exponentially higher.
Overheal wrote: » I believe I asked you to stop posting in bad faith: please stop posting in bad faith. You, I, every other contributor, and reader, can see how you tried to push off his opinion as a fact - an alternative fact at that.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » True, I looked it up he was talking about the plane being the largest when the building was constructed. The interview was in early 2001 so i thought he meant then. The guy went missing on 9/11 says on top of the page on the video. Probably died that day. 707 was a faster plane with comparable fuel load 23,000 galloons. They probably assumed it hit at cruise speed would be about 600mph for 707.
banie01 wrote: » Just stop, please! Don't try and lay blame on the man you selectively quote for a mistake you perpetuate. The 707 is a 1950s design. It entered service in @1958. When the Towers were building the 747 was already in Service as the largest aircraft in civilian use and the DC10, the Lockheed Tristar were all in service. That he claimed a 707 as the largest aircraft and you repeated it as a fact is disingenuous in the extreme.
