Dev, I dont want to argue but can you explain the molten steel? Serious question The free fall speed and the beams being fired hundreds of feet, I would also like answers for this.
Where is the "evidence" of molten steel eddie? The stuff pouring or cascading out of the towers while they were on fire? Pools of it lying on the ground around the 9/11 site?
please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image please log in to view this image
And how do you (or they) know that is "Steel" which is melting (or flowing)? Did someone grab a sample of the flowing metal in a test tube and wait until it had cooled? Or did they wait until it cooled and then take a sample? Is it coincidence that the molten "steel" just happens to be flowing out of the floors where the plane impacted or were thermite charges planted in exactly the same area where the plane hit?
the so called "molten steel" is probably molten aluminium which would have come from the shell of the planes and has a much more lower melting temperature so it would have melted quickly in the fiery heat
Eddie, Dev used to work in the steelworks and was well used to the heat treatment of steels and its properties, did you not know. There is absolutely nothing he doesn't know about quenching, tempering and normalising.
I could believe 1 of the building collapsing the way it did, maybe even 2, but 3, and the science for WTC7 is total BS, the only way they have been able to 'prove' it fell down how they said it did was to change the construction of the building to fit the collapse. They've robbed the insurance companies of billions, they robbed the vault at the bottom of the WTCs of it's billions of $ of gold, they robbed their own people, sold them a lie and are now systematically robbing and killing the Afghans and Iraqis on the back of it, invasions that were planned months/years before. 3 weeks from attack to victorious invasion, and the Oilman the Taliban refused to do business with is suddenly running their country.
Eddie, do you have any background whatsoever in structural mechanics? I side with dev on this one. The science backs up the fact that the towers came down as a result of being hit by 2 planes. The internal core of 47 columns make it more feasible for the building to collapse into its own footprint.
So do I being in the Offshore Industry. And having worked in a metallurgical lab for 8 years. But hey what the **** do I know compared to someone who has worked for the Army and the Police. He obviously knows all about it. All we are saying is that there are things which don't add up. Any idiot can see that. Doesn't mean necessarily a conspiracy but there are glaring omissions that require explanantion. If we listened to the likes of Dev et al we would still be thinking the world was flat if we go with everything the so called "experts" say.
No I have very little experience of structural work, enough to know how strong buldings are though and I understand metal and how it behaves when heated, albeit with much lighter metal. I have prepped many beams for large structural work, I know how heavy and strong they are, and have worked on small structures, the company I worked for and learned my trade with was a small company so we were more about sculptures, and the usual gates, railings, balconies, roofracks n what not. My boss was a bastard of a guy but one of the best fabricators in britain, worked with Andy Scott on many sculptures, including a certain one outside Ibrox!!(traitor that he is) and has sculptures all over scotland.
So basically you don't have a clue what you are talking about? Me on the other hand, 4 years of study, mainly in structural mechanics, structural design and detail, and the theory of structures, along with 6 and a half years with one of the biggest civil engineering companies in the world. In a standard steel structure you need to calculate the load distribution along beams and down columns, which go into the foundations etc. The world trade centre towers were not conventional steel structures, their design is extremely unconventional. The reason you have structural steel distributed evenly throughout a building is to allow loads to be distributed evenly across the entire length and breadth. In the WTC towers, the structural load bearing columns were all the centre of the structure. ALL loads are transferred to the centre of the building. In a standard structural steel frame, if one column fails then others around it are able to be distributed the load safely. In the WTC towers, it would only take a few of those 47 columns to cause a complete, catastrophic failure. That means the whole structure fails. If it happened near the bottom of the towers, then you would account for wind load on the upper building to cause the building to fall sideways. As it happened at the top and the structure failed in the centre, the building almost falls into itself. Think of it like a vacuum, with everything getting sucked into the centre. You wouldn't see that kind of effect because of the weight of materials etc but that is in effect what would happen. As it falls in on itself from the top down, that is why it goes directly down and not to the side. I could go into universally distributed loads and factors of safety, but I won't bother.
aye but if i told you build it you would be lost with your suit trousers and workie boots with ****s rippin the pish out of you on a building site Why dont you get into how those beams, that im sure youve handled plenty of, got fired hundreds of feet through the air? did they teach you that in arsehole school?
im not a labourer m8, did i say i know more than anyone about structural engineering? I told you i have little experience in it, you didnt have to be an arsehole and imply that you somehow have more intelligence than me because you wear a shirt to work. so tell me again why those beams flew hundreds of feet?
I'm adding to the thread my knowledge on structural engineering. If you don't know the mechanics behind how structures work, then why try force your opinion? I wouldn't be on threads making myself out to be an expert on something I know very little about, especially on such a complicated subject. I could go into a hell of a lot more detail about how the structures could fall the way they did as a result of planes hitting them where they did.
Have you ever even touched a bit of metal? Have you had any sparks scraped off your eyeball? Have you ever built anything with metal? Do you know what metal smells like when its melting? The last time I checked, you learn about something by doing it, physical experience, any arsehole can read a book and study theory. Anyone who has worked on anything involving metal knows that you encounter problems and theory does not always play out to the letter. You dont need to study structural engineering to know that those buildings should not have fell, the guy who built them is telling you that, I gather he knows a bit more than you on the subject. When has a building ever fell looking like a controlled demoliton, that wasnt a controlled demolition, and im talking about wtc7.
