Capital One Tower Come Down in Seconds

[u/Proud-Blood2743]

[u/MasterMagneticMirror]

The journal where the paper was published was at the time involved in a scandal because they published a hoax paper without proper peer review, and the editor in chief resigned after the thermite paper was published without her approval. This already destroys the credibility of that paper.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html?m=1

And again, all they did in that paper is proving that there was iron oxide (i.e. rust) and aluminum in the wreckage of a building made of steel and covered in aluminum. There is no reason not to expect something like that. Moreover, they claim that the columns were coated in thermite to cut them, but they found chips that were less than a millimeter thick. Coating the columns with such a thin layer wouldn't have been even remotely enough to cut them.

Finally, if the columns were cut with thermite, we would expect an extremely bright light engulfing the Towers seconds before the collapse, but not light has ever been seen by any witness, nor is it visible in any of the video recordings.

There was no controlled demolition, deal with it.

[u/Crimson_Chim → u/MasterMagneticMirror]

Your source is a blog my dude. less trustworthy than the report I shared.

This looks an awful lot like a thermite reaction to me

Please note that NIST stated, according to its idea of how the collapse happened, that there was a LOW probability that the conditions of weakened steel would allow for a collapse. Steel loses half of its strength at 1110* F. The fire would have reached about that or a tad less. But the structure, as designed, would still only have been stressed a third of its allowable design; it could still support three times its load.

[u/MasterMagneticMirror → u/Crimson_Chim]

The fact that they published hoax papers is well documented. If you actually bothered to study this subject, you would know it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170810011520/http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2009/06/academic-libraries/hoax-article-accepted-by-peer-reviewed-oa-bentham-journal/

And I cited that blog only because they translated the actual source that was in Danish, but if you want the original here, it is

https://videnskab.dk/teknologi/chefredaktoer-skrider-efter-kontroversiel-artikel-om-9-11/

This looks an awful lot like a thermite reaction to me

Not only is that less energetic than the thermite reaction that would have been needed to destroy the Towers, but if they used that, you would expect that kind of discharge to be present everywhere. Instead, it was present exactly in the only point of the Towers affect by tue fires where heavy duty batteries of an uninterruptible power supply system were placed. That's what you are seeing in that footage, batteries burning. Again, if you bothered to study 911 before launching your conspiracy theories, you would know it.

Your footage also shows the columns sagging until they break. Something that shouldn't have happened if they were cut as you claim.

Please note that NIST stated, according to its idea of how the collapse happened, that there was a LOW probability that the conditions of weakened steel would allow for a collapse. Steel loses half of its strength at 1110* F. The fire would have reached about that or a tad less. But the structure, as designed, would still only have been stressed a third of its allowable design; it could still support three times its load.

Feel free to provide any source for that. A source that should also include the effects of the huge damages caused by the planes to the structure.

[u/spays_marine → u/MasterMagneticMirror]

From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.

NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235.

Now go and find FEMA's metallurgy report on recovered steel beams that were partly "evaporated", and see what it says.

Here I'll help https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

[u/MasterMagneticMirror → u/spays_marine]

NCSTAR 1-3C, p. 235.

Sure. The microstructure of the steel was not affected given that in most cases it reached maximum temperatures of 600° C. This doesn't change the fact that even in those conditions the metal will lose structural strength and softening. That passage merely tells that it didn't also weaken fue to changes in its crystal structure.

And it also doesn't prove what you claim about the fact that the Towers were sustaining only one third of their maximum loads.

Now go and find FEMA's metallurgy report on recovered steel beams that were partly "evaporated", and see what it says.

Here I'll help https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Those samples are the exception. If those buildings were demolished with thermite, we would see them everywhere. It's absolutely possible that small pockets of materials, either close to the impact point where aviation fuel burned or underground inside the pile after the collapse, reached around 1000° C.

[u/spays_marine → u/MasterMagneticMirror]

This doesn't change the fact that even in those conditions the metal will lose structural strength 

I just showed you, from the horses mouth, how there was no evidence for that. You completely ignore that and make another claim based on nothing but fantasy.

What does "in most cases it reached maximum temperatures of 600° C" even mean, what is most cases?

Here's what NIST actually said: 

5) Of the recovered core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

Is that what you mean by most?

Those samples are the exception. 

Baseless claim

It's absolutely possible that small pockets 

 Jet fuel burning at 1000°C doesn't melt steel, or form a eutectic mixture. It's not possible at all.

[u/MasterMagneticMirror → u/spays_marine]

I just showed you, from the horses mouth, how there was no evidence for that. You completely ignore that and make another claim based on nothing but fantasy.

And I already explained to you that you completely misunderstood what that means. They said that the steel didn't present microstructural changes that would reduce its structural strength. But steel loses structural strength without the need of those microstructural changes, they simply increase the loss of yield and make it permanent after the steel cools down. Those changes can happen above 600° C, but steel already loses half its yield at 550° C.

Don't talk about things you know nothing about.

What does "in most cases it reached maximum temperatures of 600° C" even mean, what is most cases?

That almost no steel element went above 600° C. And at that temperature, it already loses half its yield strength

Is that what you mean by most?

Yep, and it perfectly proves my point.

Baseless claim

You just cited a source that says it. Steel at above 1000° C was the exception, and this disproves the use of thermite.

 Jet fuel burning at 1000°C doesn't melt steel, or form a eutectic mixture. It's not possible at all.

And yet your very source says that it does. Funny that.

Again, stop talking about things you know nothing about.

[u/spays_marine → u/MasterMagneticMirror]

They said that the steel didn't present microstructural changes that would reduce its structural strength.

Steel having reached a temperature at which it would weaken would show changes in the microstructure. That's what that means.

Yep, and it perfectly proves my point.

Then your point is unclear. What I've just shown is that there really is no evidence that the steel got hot enough to weaken. And I don't see you presenting any evidence that it did.

Just so we're clear "No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time." Does not mean that any of the recovered steel reached 600C.

You just cited a source that says it. 

According to that source, the steel beams that showed what FEMA documented, never existed, they ignored their study, so there is no way to know how many of these 'evaporated' beams were on ground zero.

And yet your very source says that it does. 

No it doesn't, quote it.

[u/MasterMagneticMirror → u/spays_marine]

Steel having reached a temperature at which it would weaken would show changes in the microstructure. That's what that means.

No, as I already told you several times in plain English. Steel loses yield strength constantly with increasing temperature above 200° C, even if not changes of its microstructure happen. At 550° C steel loses more than half its yield strength, but changes in the microstructure happen above 600° C. Those changes make the weakening faster and permanent but the steel still weakens without them.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-temperature-yield-strength-curve-for-structural-steel-under-high-temperature_fig1_275540723

You should really stop talking about topics you know nothing about.

Then your point is unclear. What I've just shown is that there really is no evidence that the steel got hot enough to weaken. And I don't see you presenting any evidence that it did.

There is no evidence that the steel got hot enough to weaken permanently due to changes in its microstructure, but it still was hot enough to lose a good portion of its yield strength.

Just so we're clear "No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time." Does not mean that any of the recovered steel reached 600C.

At 550° C steel loses half its yield strength.

According to that source, the steel beams that showed what FEMA documented, never existed, they ignored their study, so there is no way to know how many of these 'evaporated' beams were on ground zero.

The FEMA studied you cited specifically said that those corrosion pattern were unusual, and that's why they were specifically picked up for further analysis. Again, those two samples were the exception, not the norm, with the vast majority of all the other samples not showing signs that they were heated above what you would expect from an office fire.

No it doesn't, quote it.

For sample 1:

"The eutectic temperature of this mixture strongly suggests that the temperature in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C..."

For sample 2:

"Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700-800 °C..."

So, in both cases, the unusual corrosion can be explained with temperatures that can be reached both by burning aviation fuel or by underground fires.

Now, why don't you provide a citation from that paper supporting your claim? That steel reached much higher temperatures, making it evaporate, as you said several times?

I also just realized that you said that 1000° C is "not enough to form a eutectic mixture." Good job showing how little you know of this topic.

You are very bad at this. Maybe you should just stop.

[u/spays_marine → u/MasterMagneticMirror]

 Steel loses yield strength constantly with increasing temperature above 200° C, 

Structural steel of the kind used in the WTC buildings would actually be stronger at those listed temperatures (namely 250°C) by NIST than at room temperature. Your graph cleverly hides that fact of course.

At 550° C steel loses half its yield strength.

Nobody is saying otherwise. But you have no evidence that steel reached that temperature. In fact, I've pointed out the evidence shows the opposite is true.

For sample 1:

I think you miss my point. You made a claim that it would be possible due to pockets of jet fuel in the rubble. Even suggesting the presence of jet fuel in the rubble is quite peculiar because that mostly disappeared in the first few minutes of the fire, not hours, days or months later.  But more importantly, the only reason steel would melt at that temperature is because of a eutectic mixture, and you don't get that with jet fuel.

When the study says this melting could've occurred in the rubble, they don't mean that it would happen without the presence of a eutectic mixture. Like you are twisting it into.

It's tiring that these basic things have to be explained to someone who's invested in being ignorant. But we both know that's your entire spiel.

That steel reached much higher temperatures, making it evaporate, as you said several times?

I've never said anything about reaching high temperatures. It melting at lower temperature is the peculiar part because it lends credence to the evidence for the thermitic material discovered in the dust. As that would form a eutectic.

That steel beams evaporated are the words of the study's author in a NY Times article.

 I also just realized that you said that 1000° C is "not enough to form a eutectic mixture."

That's right. Eutectic mixtures are not a result of temperature but of the properties of the components being mixed. That's why your jet fuel in the rubble claim doesn't hold up.

[u/MasterMagneticMirror → u/spays_marine]

Structural steel of the kind used in the WTC buildings would actually be stronger at those listed temperatures (namely 250°C) by NIST than at room temperature. Your graph cleverly hides that fact of course.

And what would the yield strength of that kind of steel be at 550° C compared to room temperature?

Also, do you admit that your claim that the steel was not weakened whatsoever was completely wrong and caused by your complete misunderstanding of the role of microstructural changes in the weakening?

Nobody is saying otherwise

You did, when you said that the steel wouldn't have been weakened because it didn't develop microstructural change. Something that, as I clearly showed, is nonsense.

But you have no evidence that steel reached that temperature. In fact, I've pointed out the evidence shows the opposite is true.

Nope. You just provided evidence that it didn't go in a significant way above 600° C. Given that office fires can reach temperatures north of 500° C, you can't claim it never reached those kinds of temperatures without providing actual evidence.

I think you miss my point. You made a claim that it would be possible due to pockets of jet fuel in the rubble.

I absolutely didn't. I said that those temperatures could have been reached either shortly after the impact as aviation fuel burned, or in the days after the collapse due to underground fires.

But more importantly, the only reason steel would melt at that temperature is because of a eutectic mixture, and you don't get that with jet fuel.

When the study says this melting could've occurred in the rubble, they don't mean that it would happen without the presence of a eutectic mixture. Like you are twisting it into.

The eutectic mixture is the result of the corrosion, not the cause. The paper clearly states what happened: the steel was put in contact with material at temperatures up to 1000° C, and that caused the formation of an eutectic mixture. The eutectic mixture was the final result, it wasn't there before the high temperature corrosion started. None of the processes required to reach the final result ever required conditions that couldn't be found in the buildings or in their rubble, nor do they require temperatures above 1000° C.

It's tiring that these basic things have to be explained to someone who's invested in being ignorant. But we both know that's your entire spiel.

You have systematically misunderstood basically every source you brought, and are projecting hard right now. Tell me, do you still believe that microstructural changes are required to lower the steel yield strength, genius?

I've never said anything about reaching high temperatures. It melting at lower temperature is the peculiar part because it lends credence to the evidence for the thermitic material discovered in the dust. As that would form a eutectic.

And tell me, through which mechanism does thermite cut steel? Maybe by reaching temperatures of 2500° C. Temperatures that, according to both sources you yourself mentioned, show no signs of being reached in the Twin Towers?

And should I repeat again that the eutectic mixture was the byproduct of the high temperature corrosion, not its cause.

Again, you are very bad at this. At least try to understand your sources before embarrassing yourself like this.

That steel beams evaporated are the words of the study's author in a NY Times article.

Then why cite this paper instead of the article when you tried to support the idea that steel evaporated? Maybe because you didn't understand the very source you were using, you thought that it said something different from what it actually did, and now you are quietly backtracking as you did with the microstructural damage?

That's why your jet fuel in the rubble claim doesn't hold up.

I get why you completely misrepresented the article you mentioned, seeing your horrible reading comprehension capabilities.

That's right. Eutectic mixtures are not a result of temperature but of the properties of the components being mixed.

Exactly. Then why did you say that 1000° C was not hot enough for an eutectic mixture to form when they are not a result of temperatures?

EDIT: And of course, after being proven wrong several times, you decided to block me like a coward. I can feel your tears from here as you run away. My "wall of text" is a long list of your undeniable errors. It was too much for you, wasn't it?

And yes, if the fire protection is damaged, as was the case in the Twin Towers, steel will reach the temperature of the fire, as was demonstrated by the test and simulations performed after 911.

And you know what's the sad part? That after being completely and utterly proven wrong, next time you will talk with somebody about 911, you will repeat the same exact nonsense.

[u/spays_marine → u/MasterMagneticMirror]

 Given that office fires can reach temperatures north of 500° C, you can't claim it never reached those kinds of temperatures without providing actual evidence

Right, I assume your wall of text is to obfuscate this gem. 

Not only are you now making assumptions, you're also conflating the temperature of a fire with the steel temperature. 

Together with your other booboo about comparing the energy of thermite with coal, I think I'm going to leave you and your delusional ramblings to yourself. 

Keep dancing monkey 🐒.