Chain of Custody

Originally Posted by superlogicalthinker


The main ingredient is carbon. Carbon is what makes iron into steel. Other chemicals are added, like chromium, which makes stainless steel. Different amounts of carbon can change the properties. Adding a lot of carbon makes high-carbon steel, which is hard and flexible, used to make knife blades and (lower quality) springs. Adding molybdenum (and chrome, I think) makes chromoly steel, very flexible and strong steel often used in the racing industry.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_ad...#ixzz1kUqDnyGB
Where did you get those degrees from? Back of a cereal box? LOL
Click to expand...

You're now reduced to being a jerk to yourself?


You're wrong. About EVERYTHING. Get a new hobby.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
I love how you cut the sentence down so the word flexible is not shown. my first hit came up this:

The main ingredient is carbon. Carbon is what makes iron into steel. Other chemicals are added, like chromium, which makes stainless steel. Different amounts of carbon can change the properties. Adding a lot of carbon makes high-carbon steel, which is hard and flexible, used to make knife blades and (lower quality) springs. Adding molybdenum (and chrome, I think) makes chromoly steel, very flexible and strong steel often used in the racing industry.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a..._and_give_different_proportions#ixzz1kUqDnyGB
Click to expand...
No - just adding high amounts of carbon does not make steels hard and flexible for knife blades.

The heat treatment does. Like I said before you can change the properties of steel via heat treatment. Lets take three 0.8% plain carbon steel samples and heat them to 1000°C - I want you to tell us all seeing as how you are so amazing at this what the general properties and why those properties occur (hint: microstructure) for each of the following.

1. Leave it to cool to room temperature in air.
2. Quench in oil to room temperature.
3. Quench as in 2 but then heat it to 420°C and leave for an hour and air cool
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
I love how you cut the sentence down so the word flexible is not shown. my first hit came up this:

The main ingredient is carbon. Carbon is what makes iron into steel. Other chemicals are added, like chromium, which makes stainless steel. Different amounts of carbon can change the properties. Adding a lot of carbon makes high-carbon steel, which is hard and flexible, used to make knife blades and (lower quality) springs. Adding molybdenum (and chrome, I think) makes chromoly steel, very flexible and strong steel often used in the racing industry.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a..._and_give_different_proportions#ixzz1kUqDnyGB
Click to expand...
That's the first time I've seen "I think" in a technical definition. Did you write that yourself?
 
beachnut said:
How much carbon is in WTC steel?

tear drop? got photos?

You got a wiki degree of silly. You know as much about steel as you do 911, maybe more about steel. What engineering school did you get all this super stuff from? Wiki?

There is no valid chain of custody for the Jones delusional nan0-thermite scam. There is no evidence of thermite on any WTC steel. It is cute you cute and paste wiki answers, answers by the people for the people. Did you write the answer?
Click to expand...

O your just a silly man beach, always trying to get me mad and throw me off, never sucseeding.

Everyone here knows that the TT were known to flex in high winds right? That's why the STEEL CORE COLUMNS thinned as you got closer to the top.

I have spoken with people who worked in the towers whom have said you could feel them sway in high winds.

But all of you know this because you are sooooo in tune with the structure.

So how could steel possably NOT be flexible if 200,000 tons would flex in high winds.??
 
NoahFence said:
So your proof that nobody on JREF acknowledges Iron Microspheres, is a post ON JREF, showing IRON MICROSPHERES?

Holy crap. I expect nothing less from you people.
Click to expand...

No I was reffering to the quoted post of shepleshills or whoever. You know this. Nevertheless i need not appoligize.
 
NoahFence said:
I'm calling BS.

Have you brought your concerns about Controlled Demolition to those people?
Click to expand...

I have. That was actually the reason for me contacting this person. he worked on the 65th floor for 6 years. he has told me that when he took the elevator from the 44th floor( because you had to switch there) when he arrived in the lobby it was demolished. He says he froze up because he couldn't believe he was standing in the lobby. I remember hearing the same thing about building 7 via the Jennings interview, but thats a separate issue totally. He says he walked through the lobby before the second plane strike.

You do know people are opening up to this subject on a global scale right? It is not a dismissed as in the past. Just ask Geraldo.

You guys are gonna be really busy in the near future when the world beleives CD. You know, trying to change their minds.

Go and stop a random person on the street and ask them what they think brought down the WTC. I bet at least half, if not more say CD.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
O your just a silly man beach, always trying to get me mad and throw me off, never sucseeding.

Everyone here knows that the TT were known to flex in high winds right? That's why the STEEL CORE COLUMNS thinned as you got closer to the top.

I have spoken with people who worked in the towers whom have said you could feel them sway in high winds.

But all of you know this because you are sooooo in tune with the structure.

So how could steel possably NOT be flexible if 200,000 tons would flex in high winds.??
Click to expand...
wiki your way to knowledge
You don't know anything about steel, you are regurgitating wiki.

You have no degree in engineering, why are you trying to school people when you have delusions on 911?

A gymnast is flexible, but do you want your building bending down to the ground? Here you are in the chain of custody for a Jones insane claim of thermite thread bogged down with flexibility on a topic you have no knowledge save the googled wiki junk you copy and paste.


What is the percent of carbon in the WTC steel? What grades of steel were used, by strength, using standards the industry uses for the exterior sections? How were they selected?

The fact remains, zero thermite iron fused to WTC steel. No need for a chain of custody for thermite dust that never existed, like presenting a chain of custody for evidence of Santa Claus or Bigfoot; not needed.
Feel free to wiki your way to support your failed delusions on 911, it is what 911 truth does best.
 
Wow, there's a ton of genius in this thread. The Towers swayed because of the steel flexibility, not due to the fact it was a complex structure with many column to column connections, column to truss connections, etc. It was the flexibility of the steel that was the reason for this.

And carbon is added to increase steel flexibility. Which means that low carbon alloys like standard steels (from .8 to 2.0% carbon content) are brittle and something like pig iron (3% carbon and higher) is flexible. Huh. Didn't know that all the citations of pig iron being brittle were all wrong. It's also funny how ductility seems to be associated with lower levels of carbon in steel, not higher, but I'm no genius. Those folks who work with steel professionally must not know what they're talking about. :rolleyes:
 
superlogicalthinker said:
No I was reffering to the quoted post of shepleshills or whoever. You know this. Nevertheless i need not appoligize.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your quote:
There was nothing pretend about the TH. It really happened. Kind of like the iron rich spheres that you Jretreds pretend are not there.
Click to expand...

So not only are you dishonest to people you're talking to, but you're dishonet to yourself?

Wow.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
I have. That was actually the reason for me contacting this person. he worked on the 65th floor for 6 years. he has told me that when he took the elevator from the 44th floor( because you had to switch there) when he arrived in the lobby it was demolished. He says he froze up because he couldn't believe he was standing in the lobby. I remember hearing the same thing about building 7 via the Jennings interview, but thats a separate issue totally. He says he walked through the lobby before the second plane strike.

You do know people are opening up to this subject on a global scale right? It is not a dismissed as in the past. Just ask Geraldo.

You guys are gonna be really busy in the near future when the world beleives CD. You know, trying to change their minds.

Go and stop a random person on the street and ask them what they think brought down the WTC. I bet at least half, if not more say CD.
Click to expand...

You are an agent for an anti-intellectual movement of woo, which only exists in your mind. You have no clue what happen on 911 because you don't do science, you can't do simple physics to save you from the lies you adopt out of ignorance and spread due to the same.

You are now claiming everyone is dumbed down saying WTC 1 was a CD. Guess you could be right, the world could be falling into a dark age of stupid, not the first time millions of people fall for hate and ignorance, Hitler guided Germany into delusions, hate and ignorance, and you freely follow 911 truth into the pit of ignorance.

You don't care there is zero iron fused to steel from thermite at the WTC complex, you blindly spew lies and claim you will triumph, bringing in a new age of darkness where lies, hearsay, and fantasy rule. Good for you! Ignore science, ignore evidence, go for the woo. You are making up delusions based on your delusions.
 
Keep the discussion civil please. Ensure posts address the argument not the arguer.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Gaspode
 
superlogicalthinker said:
No I was reffering to the quoted post of shepleshills or whoever. You know this. Nevertheless i need not appoligize.
Click to expand...

You claimed "we" say the iron microspheres do not exist, that is not true. Do you accept that or not?

And btw, did you really quote a WIKI Answers page as your only source??? lol?
 
Chris, if I might make a suggestion it would be this:

Start a new thread. Outline the experiment as much as you are able. Ask two questions:

1. If the experiment went off as outlined, would you accept the results?

2. If the answer to the previous question was "no", please outline what changes would need to be made for you to accept it. Please note that any suggestions that didn't also apply to the Harrit study will be discarded.

Ask the mods to put the thread on moderated status and to discard all posts that don't follow this basic outline.

That would reduce the amount of jibber-jabber and force the twoofers to commit to the study or prove themselves to be hypocrites.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Yes....but there not in a shape of a tear drop. They were pulled from extreme pressure to that shape. Cmon dude. Please.
Click to expand...

surface tension does that, no pressure, extreme or otherwise required. So SLT where did you go to college and what did you study? We know it wasn't Engineering........:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom