Well said.

yep,they knew how to make an Eutectic Mixture!
Exactly what happened in the Towers!

Molten steel was explained..........

Melting point of steel - 2800degrees F will weaken and bend only...HOWEVER
Metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal a phenomenon! Imagine that!!

It's called a "Eutectic Reaction". This reaction, which occures at the surface of steel, causes "intergranular" melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into swiss cheese.

The presence of "eutectic" formation was confirmed by examining steel samples from Twin Towers under optical and scanning electron microscopes. SEE FEMA FOR DETAILED REPORT. The "New York Times" called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."


Eutectic compound is a mixture of 2 or more substances that melt at the "lowest" temp of any mixture of its' components. i.e. Blacksmiths used sulfur rich charcoal to "lower" melting point.

In the "World Trade Center" fires, the presence of oxygen, sulfur, and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of the steel. The liquid "slag" corroded through "intergranular" channels causing severe errosion.

QUESTION: How much sulfur do you need and where did it come from?
ANSWER: Could be as simple as "acid rain". A lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide, or hydroxides and cause the "eutectic process.......


But since it didn't come from The Truthers it couldn't be true!

The 1975 World Trade Center Fire
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10613

New York Times (Saturday 15th February 1975):

Fire Commissioner John T. O¹Hagan said yesterday that he would make a vigorous effort to have a sprinkler system installed in the World Trade Center towers as a consequence of the fire that burned for three hours in one of them early yesterday morning. The towers, each 110 stories tall and the highest structures in the city, are owned and operated by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not subject to local safety codes. As Commissioner O¹Hagan stood in the sooty puddles of the North Tower¹s 11th floor hallway, he told reporters that the fire would not have spread as far as it did if sprinklers had been installed there.

The fire spread throughout about half of the offices of the floor and ignited the insulation of telephone cables in a cable shaft that runs vertically between floors. Commissioner O¹Hagan said that the absence of fire-stopper material in gaps around the telephone cables had allowed the blaze to spread to other floors within the cable shaft. Inside the shaft, it spread down to the 9th floor and up to the 16th floor, but the blaze did not escape from the shaft out into room or hallways on the other floors.........

Only the 11th floor office area was burned, but extensive water damage occurred on the 9th and 10th floors, and smoke damage extended as far as the 15th floor, the spokesman said. Although there were no direct casualties, 28 of the 150 firemen called to the scene suffered minor injuries.


More from the New York Times (Saturday 14th February 1975):

"It was like fighting a blow torch" according to Captain Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6... ³Flames could be seen pouring out of 11th floor windows on the east side of the building...²

This was a very serious fire which spread over some 65 per cent of the eleventh floor (the core plus half the office area) in the very same building that supposedly "collapsed" on 9/11 due to a similar, or lesser, fire.

This fire also spread to a number of other floors. And although it lasted over 3 hours, it caused no serious structural damage and trusses survived the fires without replacement and supported the building for many, many more years after the fires were put out.

It should be emphasized that the North Tower suffered no serious structural damage from this fire. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced.

That the 1975 fire was more intense than the 9/11 fires is evident from the fact that it caused the 11th floor east side windows to break and flames could be seen pouring from these broken windows. This indicates a temperature greater than 700°C. In the 9/11 fires the windows were not broken by the heat (only by the aircraft impact) indicating a temperature below 700°C.

So now you know that the WTC towers were well designed and quite capable of surviving a serious fire. I repeat that this was a very hot fire that burnt through the open-plan office area of the eleventh floor and spread up and down the central core area for many floors. This was a serious fire.

Much was learned from the 1975 WTC fire. In particular, the fact that the fire had not been contained to a single floor but spread to many floors, caused much concern. The points of entry of the fire to other floors were identified and the floors of each building were modified to make sure that this would never happen again. For some strange reason, the modifications failed to perform on September 11, 2001 and again the fires spread from floor to floor.

pointless

A serious fire, AND an airplane striking it at hundreds of miles and hour, AND jet fuel increasing the temps beyond the range of normal files?

Ohh you forgot those added details.

It didn't need to melt, only become weak

Exactly,but apparently someone saw something molten,and called it Steel!
Saw some strange happenings in Sweat-Furnaces when separating Steel from aluminum!
Stuff that just isn't supposed to happen!

The steel only needed to reach around 1000F to fail. The temp of a jet fuel fire is 1800F. The building would have fallen with nothing but the jet fuel fire but it probably fell a little quicker because the plane knocked off some of the fireproofing.

The plane is unable to fully penetrate a building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gehmLdYK_48&list=FL3fy-3GlodSxU7EWsJ--VoA&index=1&feature=plpp_video

The video does not prove nor even indicate that in any way that effects the analysis of the 9/11 event. The best video to show what happened on 9/11 was the video of 9/11.

Yes the millions of videos that show the second plane hitting but still no proof it was a United Airlines Plane.

*facepalm*

..no, I'm really not.

I dealt with psychiatrists outside the military.

Psychologists, inside it.

Unless they lied and just gave me a different title.
And misprinted all their paperwork... >.>

I think this whole thread is a conspiracy.

Psychiatrists are often people who are attracted to the profession because they themselves have a mental problem, or someone in their family does.

Psychologists, are people who think they are normal and everyone else is dysfunctional and they think they can "help" the dysfunctional ones.

If you were in the military and needed some form of counselling, which it seems from your dislike of the area and what you said above, then you would have had no need to deal with psychologists. It's highly like the psychiatrists that saw you didn't refer to themselves as such as the label has more stigma and causes people to more likely reject what is said in their sessions as they dislike being thought of as crazy, which is what people reprieve psychiatrists as dealing with.

nice read, its funny to see the guys try to explain the people who try to expain the unexplainable

Intellectual Laziness (Gullible)

Mental Disorder.

..interesting.

So what's in between?

I assume you have some data which you can run statistical analysis on to support this claim . . . or is this just pulled right out of your ***?