Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1…2122242627…61

Comments

  • Options
    #692
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #693
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #694
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #695
    OwlsZat
    Registered Users Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #696
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #697
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,829 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #698
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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. 


  • Options
    #699
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #700
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #701
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #702
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,829 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEZAiW16lECRv4_l58GtSwAjAXl2UtRah2RfXcYWFBW6hwmKrW&s


  • Options
    #703
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEZAiW16lECRv4_l58GtSwAjAXl2UtRah2RfXcYWFBW6hwmKrW&s

    Frank A. Demartini, the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, who said on January 25, 2001:

    “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 because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”

    There video online he says the same thing.


  • Options
    #704
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,476 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    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.

    Can you please post a CREDIBLE source for this claim please?


  • Options
    #705
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Can you please post a CREDIBLE source for this claim please?



  • Options
    #706
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,476 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    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 

    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?


  • Options
    #707
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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?

    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.


  • Options
    #708
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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.
    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.


  • Options
    #709
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
    . 707 was a bigger plane than the one that crashed on 9/11.

    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.


  • Options
    #710
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If you’re not going to post in good faith I think everyone would rather you do not post at all.


  • Options
    #711
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #712
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 17,829 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    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.

    He wasn't an engineer, and he wasn't involved in the design (or construction) of the buildings. He was an onsite construction manager and was hired after they were built. So that's false.

    What's worse is, we've been through all this before.


  • Options
    #713
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    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?
    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.


  • Options
    #714
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #715
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #716
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    You’re still doing it


  • Options
    #717
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.

    https://www.infoplease.com/passenger-planes-boeing-707 cruise speed is 600mph an hour.


  • Options
    #718
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,176 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact.


  • Options
    #719
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.

    How so he said multiple impacts of jet airliners. Thats what he said. You believe he wrong about that ok we move from it.

    I quote him again. “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 because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid—and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.”


  • Options
    #720
    banie01
    Registered Users Posts: 16,625 ✭✭✭✭banie01


    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.

    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 1st flown in 53 or 54 and 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.
    Many aircraft far larger than the 707 were in service prior to even the widebody introductions of late 60's and early 70's
    That he claimed a 707 as the largest aircraft and you repeated it as a fact is disingenuous in the extreme.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #721
    Cheerful Spring2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    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.

    It smaller by six feet, has the same fuel load as 767 and 770 travels faster than 767 at cruise speed. They assumed the 770 would hit it at 600mph an hour with 23,000 galloons of fuel.
    I already admitted that mistake in a post. I was mistaken it was larger plane than 767 in a post.


Advertisement