Ok... You make the claim quoted below, then don't even acknowledge you were wrong when we demonstrate that you were.
Nice try, I don't speculate. The teperature is way over the degree of a normal office fire. Eagar said the fires did not get "much hotter than 650C"
If you know your conversions, that is approx 1200F. The surface temp alone exeeded that.
This is a distortion. Here is the direct quote from
Eagar's article:
It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.
Also:
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.[SIZE=-1]
4[/SIZE] This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.
Eagar wasn't saying 650 degrees C was the max temp. He was actually putting it at around 800 or so; 650 was a comparative temp used to indicate the point at which the sort of steel used in the WTC would lose half its strength. But regardless of what he wrote, people
need to keep in mind that what Eagar wrote was composed in 2002,
well before NIST conducted it's studies and made a better determination of what the fire temperatures were. Eagar was correctly doing a general analysis using first principles, but he did not conduct the experiments that ultimately determined what the temperatures were.
Again, you need to actually study your material. We know
what Thomas Eagar said, and
we've discussed his writings before. You are not accurately representing what he was trying to say.
Above and beyond all of that, why are you under the illusion that the eroded steel indicates anything suspicious? For the second (or third, or something) time in this thread: The Worcester group had determined that the reaction temperatures were between 550
o and 850
o C, and possibly up to 940
oC, but no higher. They also determined that such a reaction that would leave such a series of microformations would have to take place on the order of hours. What thermate reaction would never exceed 940
oC and last on the order of hours? The point here is that the steel had indeed been studied, and the results of those studies rule out thermate. And that's
before you take into account that this was a very small number of pieces that were corroded, let alone
any of the other arguments that
have been mustered to refute the claim.
There is no there there. You are suffering under the delusion that there must be some proof out there for intentional demolitions of the towers. All of the reasons you offer in support of this have been presented in the past and shown to be distortions at best, outright falsities at worst. What you need to do is study
the event itself, as well as all the knowledge that's been produced about it (at least read the WPI writeups, as well as Banovich and Foeck's stuff to figure out where you're going wrong with the thermate claims). What you need to
stop doing is simply bringing up long disproven trutherisms. Search this forum for points before you bring them up; that'll save you from covering already well trod grounds. But one way or another,
learn what really happened. If you continue presenting distortions and disproven talking points, you're going to get nowhere.
