Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory

[bush_cheney2004]

911 Truthers = Fake News

[Rue]

You have provided no evidence for your assertion that what was found at WTC could only be nanothermites and not paint chips.

None of the you tubes or articles you reference have ruled out pain chips or even acknowledge the possibility that what they found are paint chips. They don't address that issue.

Lol do you have anything to evidence the residue that was found was NOT paint chips. That's not a difficult question. To date you've provided nothing.

To summarize what you have done is  first tried to state no evidence exists at all  to repudiate your assertions that the residue  found has to be nanothermies or even thermites. Next you then accidentally admitted the info exists because you switched it to the argument it exists but is not "science".  You now assert because you disagree with the evidence presented to you, it can't be "science".  You make the absurd argument that something can't be science once yo disagree with it.

You also make the absurd argument that the speculative theories you present and reference are "science" when in fact they are not because they  have not been proven by a scientific methodology and remain unproven.

In summary you tried to make the following go poof:

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Rue

[hot enough]

36 minutes ago, Rue said:

You have provided no evidence for your assertion that what was found at WTC could only be nanothermites and not paint chips.

Yes, I did. I gave you the exact point in the video where Mark Basile describes the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust. 

How did the eutectic steel, described by FEMA, which can only happen with thermate occur in such large quantities at WTC, Rue? 

How could John Gross deny this eutectic steel when he saw a lot of it at the steelyards, the steel that wasn't immediately hauled away and put on barges to the Far East?

How could John Gross deny this eutectic steel when there are pictures of him touching the end of a molten/vaporized steel girder/beam?

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, hot enough said:

How could John Gross deny this eutectic steel

Perhaps because he was actually at the site and he knows the difference between molten steel and HOT steel.

[Rue]

Hotty's entire assumption that nanothermites and not paint chips were found at WTC is based on a report from Steven Jones. In 2006 Jones asked for samples of dust from the WTC. He wasn't actually at the WTC and using a process basic to scientific methodology obtained uncontaminated samples direcly from the site.  He then claims he obtained  second hand chips which means to believe his  conclusions you have to have no concern trusting him that his second hand evidence was never contaminated or is even from the WTC.

In real life since Hotty brought the topic up, evidence is inadmissible in court if its second hand and can not be proven to have come from the site of the alleged incident. Yet he tried to bring up the fact I am a lawyer and suggest if I was one, I would accept "second hand" evidence without questioning its continuity from and connection to the incident its supposed to help prove.

It gets better. Jones then takes these particles which he can't actually prove came from WTC but asks you to just assume came from people never disclosed who gave it to him that he saw:iron spheres and so that concludes nanothermites. Nowhere in this theory does he even attempt to deny iron spheres could be present for many reasons. He simply assumes one conclusion, they prove nanothermites. Jones article concluding it was nanothermites was not proven. It was offered as a speculative theory. There is no scientific methodology that ruled out it was anything but nanothermites. Making it even more questionable and laughable since Hotty claims its the only legitimate scientific conclusion it was never peer reviewed by scientists something basic to any conclusion in scientific methodology. Let me repeat, his theory was never proven in a lab as ruling out paint chips, nor was it peer reviewed and in fact he was caught lying when he stated in public it was peer reviewed and his publisher when caught red handed admitting it never peer reviews what it publishes tried to suggest somone other than Jones reviewed it but could not provide names!

Three years later, comes a paper from Harrit claiming these red-gray chips” found in abundance in the dust from the WTC  (which yet have been proven to have actually come from the WTC you are just supposed to take their word they did)  exhibited high energy and so MUST  mean they were particles of unignited “thermitic material.” Again this assumption was not proven using a methodology, it was simply presented as a theory and an assumption. No evidence was given to rule out that the energy found could be caused by many things other than thermites.

The very pith and substance of this " it must be thermite or nano thermite"  is based on an unproven assumption. There is no proof ruling out other possible substances In fact the assumption is nano thermite came about because after it was asserted to be thermite and that was proven chemically impossible given the heat in the explosions these geniuses had to back-track and create a new thermite, called a nano thermite. Nano thermite is a fake word. Its just a fancy way of saying super powerful thermite since the original thermite assertion literally blew up in their face and was proven ludicrous.

Now if you go back to Chicago in 1936, supposedly a series of linear thermite charged were used for a controlled demolition and  such technology has been used in controlled demolitions. So these theorists assume if it can be used for controlled demolitions one can simply assume it was used at WTC. and they claim they can assume what they found because they believe thermite is not  present in normal building material. Well of course it is  and of course the very same elements are found in paint chips. However they would have you believe that is not so and this is why Hotty engages in the ridiculous attempt to suggest paint chips and ordinary building materials don't contain the very same components. Even the information he has sent to this and other threads you will notice does not address that issue and rule out anything but thermites.

Then to add to the absurdity, Harrit  advanced the argument the elements in the red-gray chips was consistent with “nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere.” To this day if you ask him whether they are also consistent with regular paint he will refuse to address the issue. As well after advancing his theory it was from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory he refused to answer or explain why it could only have come from that one laboratory.

Here's what makes Harrit's claims even more unscientific. To date he refuses to provide his samples to anyone! Lol why? In fact to date the very proof Hotty's entire conspiracy theory relies on is unproven speculated theory. Harrit admitted  primer paint was identified in the NIST report which Hotty claims was a lie by the way, but unlike Hotty who just dismisses it as a lie, Harrit admitted it exists but  with NO EVIDENCDE argued  it ewas " markedly different from that of the red portions of the red-gray chips..." and that  "primer paint is thermally much more stable than the red-gray chip ..." . Zero proof for this. Zero.

Bottom line is that Harrit's claims have NEVER been replicated for verification by independent researchers. So for Hotty to come on this forum as if his conclusions are the only ones people must believe without any objective methodology is not only absurd but it makes his claim such speculative theories are science hilarious. Only in Hotty's world ar unproven theories he likes science, and everything else not science. That's a convenient way to divide up the world.

By the way to give you an idea what a collosal idiot Harrit is, he claimed his conclusion the nano thermites could not have been paint chips was because he found no magnesium.Only some primer paints may have abit of magnesium. The idiot Harrit didn't even know that. Now the info Hotty keeps producing about iron microspheres, asks you to leap to the conclusion that if the red-grey chips were paint, then igniting them would not produce any microspheres. Of course they do-these paint chips contain carbon and steel and if you put either component in oxygen it creates microspheres.

But hey I see  dead people.

 

 

Edited July 3, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

43 minutes ago, Omni said:

Perhaps because he was actually at the site and he knows the difference between molten steel and HOT steel.

Oy that was easy.

[hot enough]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Hotty's entire assumption that nanothermites and not paint chips were found at WTC is based on a report from Steven Jones. In 2006 Jones asked for samples of dust from the WTC.

You really are ignorant on these issues, Rue. It just one shermerism after another. Not a source, just lawyer misdirection, lawyer fabrications.

The scientific paper you are ignoring, which has never been challenged in any peer reviewed journal is,

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2 , Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4 , Frank M. Legge5 , Daniel Farnsworth2 , Gregg Roberts6 , James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/bentham_open/ActiveThermitic_Harrit_Bentham2009.pdf

All you science deniers/anti-truthers also studiously avoid,

How did the eutectic steel, described by FEMA, which can only happen with thermate occur in such large quantities at WTC, Rue? 

How could John Gross deny this eutectic steel when he saw a lot of it at the steelyards, the steel that wasn't immediately hauled away and put on barges to the Far East?

How could John Gross deny this eutectic steel when there are pictures of him touching the end of a molten/vaporized steel girder/beam?

 

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, Omni said:

Perhaps because he was actually at the site and he knows the difference between molten steel and HOT steel.

You are outright lying, Omni. That is characteristic of science deniers. When you deny science you are lying.

[Omni]

9 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You are outright lying, Omni. That is characteristic of science deniers. When you deny science you are lying.

And when you keep your fingers in your ears to all but the oft refuted "science" that supports your conspiracy theory, you become misguided. But that is a trait of conspiracists of all types I guess.

 https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics.HTM

[Rue]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

Yes, I did. I gave you the exact point in the video where Mark Basile describes the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust. 

eutectic steel, can only happen with thermate occur in such large quantities at WTC, Rue? 

How could John Gross deny this eutectic steel

In fact he did not prove what he found was nanothermites. He assumed it was. The person you quoted has never proven the components he found were not simply paint chips. Once again you don't provide any proof of nanothermites just someone presenting a theory it COULD have been nanothermites.

Now you get even more ridiculous and throw out the term eutectic steel. First of all you mean eutectoid stel and no eutectoid steel does not mean there were no paint chips. That is just outright dumb.

Not only that for your conspiracy theory to be true it would have to show nano thermites not thermites. You can't even get your own theory clear.

Lol would you go look up eutectoid steel and stop being so damn silly.

[hot enough]

Dog almighty, you anti-truther, science denying USGOCT supporters can't seem to find a single scientific peer reviewed journal article, let alone a well thought out reasoned response for your goofy US conspiracy theory.

Only a badly out of date rant.

And still, not one shred of evidence to support the USGOCT.

[Rue]

44 minutes ago, hot enough said:

You are outright lying, Omni. That is characteristic of science deniers. When you deny science you are lying.

He is not denying science in fact you are trying to claim what you quote is science and the only valid science on the topics we debate. In fact what you quote has neve rbeen scence, it is though speculated theories, theories presented as to possible explanations but every one you have provided quotes a theory that has never been proven using a scientific methodology so by its very nature is not and can not be science. Science refers to the study and observation of cause and effect using scientific methodology to establish the connection between cause and effect.

The theories you quote have never established a connection, simply speculated on a possible connection .

Calling people liars because they disagree with you I childish. Then again I forget but you would probably only be about 12 or 13 yourself. Son the world exists outside the theories you think can be the only variation of reality.

Its over. You've gone in circle now repeating the same theories. You have no actual evidence of anything just theories. Move on. Live in your world. One day you will come out of the bibble.

[hot enough]

29 minutes ago, Rue said:

In fact he did not prove what he found was nanothermites. He assumed it was. The person you quoted has never proven the components he found were not simply paint chips. Once again you don't provide any proof of nanothermites just someone presenting a theory it COULD have been nanothermites.

 

Another Rue lie. You guys have no shame.

There was more than a 'he', there were seven scientists, [plus the Mark Basile video] who all took part in the Harrit et al study, The unreacted particles found were nanothermite.

Quote

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material.

When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

I already gave you the part of the video where you, a non-scientist, who is obviously clueless about all this [still no sources from Rue, just Rue rants] have failed to watch Mark Basile describe the nanothermite.

Quote

Now you get even more ridiculous and throw out the term eutectic steel. First of all you mean eutectoid stel and no eutectoid steel does not mean there were no paint chips. That is just outright dumb.

Steel is spelled 'steel'. Rue. I'm not surprised that you can't even get that right. eutectoid steel is a different animal. 

I mean eutectic steel as described by FEMA and all the other scientists who deal with 911 and its science. 

==============

M-W:

Definition of eutectic

1 of an alloy or solution :  having the lowest melting point possible

===============

Mixing sulfur into thermite creates thermate which lowers the melting point of steel by about 1000F.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

So what created the molten/vaporized steel found at WTC? WTCs 1, 2 and 7 all experienced this eutectic steel, leaving it in a molten/vaporized state, pictures of which I have provided numerous times?

Here is a picture of it. From FEMA

Edited July 3, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

22 minutes ago, Rue said:

He is not denying science in fact you are trying to claim what you quote is science and the only valid science on the topics we debate.

Your spelling errors indicate you are losing it, Rue. 

Still not a lick of science from the science denying anti-truthers.

[Omni]

2 hours ago, hot enough said:

So what created the molten

What makes you think that was molten steel?

[hot enough]

Because of the myriad eyewitnesses

 

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by hot enough

[hot enough]

 

The myriad eyewitnesses, for all to read.

September 12, 2001-February 2002: Witnesses See Molten Metal in the Remains at Ground Zero

  

A chunk of hot metal being removed from the North Tower rubble about eight weeks after 9/11.[Source: Frank Silecchia]In the weeks and months after 9/11, numerous individuals report seeing molten metal in the remains of the World Trade Center: 

 Ken Holden, who is involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation, and debris removal operations at Ground Zero, will later tell the 9/11 Commission, “Underground, it was still so hot that moltenmetal dripped down the sides of the wall from [WTC] Building 6.” [9/11 COMMISSION, 4/1/2003] 
 William Langewiesche, the only journalist to have unrestricted access to Ground Zero during the cleanup operation, will describe, “n the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” [LANGEWIESCHE, 2002, PP. 32] 
 Leslie Robertson, one of the structural engineers responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks. [SEAU NEWS, 10/2001 ] 
 Alison Geyh, who heads a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reports: “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding moltensteel.” [JOHNS HOPKINS PUBLIC HEALTH MAGAZINE, 2001] 
 Ron Burger, a public health advisor who arrives at Ground Zero on September 12, says that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminds him of a volcano. [NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION, 9/2003, PP. 40 ] 
 Paramedic Lee Turner arrives at the World Trade Center site on September 12 as a member of a federal urban search and rescue squad. While at Ground Zero, he goes “down crumpled stairwells to the subway, five levels below ground.” There, he reportedly sees, “in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow—moltenmetal dripping from a beam.” [US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT, 9/12/2002] 
 According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who is at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6: “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.” [NATIONAL GUARD MAGAZINE, 12/2001] 
 New York firefighters will recall “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.” [NEW YORK POST, 3/3/2004] 
 As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O’Toole sees a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, “was dripping from the molten steel.” [KNIGHT RIDDER, 5/29/2002] 
Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Utah, will claim this molten metal is “direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite,” used to deliberately bring down the WTC towers. [MSNBC, 11/16/2005] He will say that without explosives, a falling building would have “insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal.” [DESERET MORNING NEWS, 11/10/2005] There will be no mention whatsoever of the molten metal in the official reports by FEMA, NIST, or the 9/11 Commission. [FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, 5/1/2002; 9/11 COMMISSION, 7/24/2004; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, 9/2005] But Dr. Frank Gayle, who leads the steelforensics aspects of NIST’s investigation of the WTC collapses, will be quoted as saying: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” [ABC NEWS 7 (NEW YORK), 2/7/2004] As well as the reports of molten metal, data collected by NASA in the days after 9/11 finds dozens of “hot spots” (some over 1,300 degrees) at Ground Zero (see September 16-23, 2001).

 

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, hot enough said:

The myriad eyewitnesses, for all to read.

Molten aluminum. Planes are built of it.

[Guest]

Probably molten desks, chairs and waste paper bins too.

[Omni]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Probably molten desks, chairs and waste paper bins too.

Yep, carpets and curtains as well.

[hot enough]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Probably molten desks, chairs and waste paper bins too.

Why do you persist in flailing your ignorance about, bcsapper? Do you understand what "vaporized" steel means, what it entails, what has to happen for that to occur.

 

Quote

 

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. He specializes in studying structural damage done by earthquakes and terrorist bombings. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001; CBS NEWS, 3/11/2002] He arrives in New York on September 19 to conduct a two-week scientific reconnaissance of the collapsed towers, hoping to gain an understanding of how they had come down. His project is one of eight financed by the National Science Foundation to study the WTC disaster. [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001; BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001; US CONGRESS. HOUSE. COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 3/6/2002] He examines numerous pieces of steel taken from Ground Zero. [CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, 12/7/2001] Astaneh-Asl will describe the WTC as “the best-designed building I have ever seen.” [SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, 10/22/2001] Yet he notices unusual warping and other damage in its remaining steel: 

*He later recalls, “I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.” [PBS, 5/10/2007] 

*Astaneh-Asl says that steel flanges have been reduced “from an inch thick to paper thin.” [BERKELEYAN, 10/3/2001] 
 

*Astaneh-Asl sees a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7, which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11. “The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.” [NEW YORK TIMES, 10/2/2001] 

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Why do you persist in flailing your ignorance about, bcsapper? 

 

 

It's fun. Although I do have to be careful not to have too much fun. I have been warned. 

I think you just never realized that there might be desks, chairs and waste paper bins in the towers. 

Edited July 4, 2017 by bcsapper

[Rue]

Hotty sometimes your attempt to knee jerk react to sound "smart" is embarrassing. Here this will probably bounce off that head of yours:

source: http://wikidiff.com/eutectoid/eutectic

.

Eutectic vs Eutectoid - What's the difference?       As adjectives the difference between eutectic and eutectoid is that eutectic is describing the chemical composition or temperature of a mixture of substances that gives the lowest temperature at which the mixture becomes fully molten a further requirement is that that temperature is lower than the melting point of any of the pure component substances while eutectoid is describing the phase-change reaction of an alloy in which, on cooling, a single solid phase transforms into two other solid phases. As nouns the difference between eutectic and eutectoid is that eutectic is a material that has the composition of an eutectic mixture or eutectic alloy while eutectoid is an alloy of a composition that undergoes the eutectoid transformation.

[Rue]

19 hours ago, hot enough said:

Another Rue lie. You guys have no shame.

There was more than a 'he', there were seven scientists, [plus the Mark Basile video] who all took part in the Harrit et al study, The unreacted particles found were nanothermite.

I already gave you the part of the video where you, a non-scientist, who is obviously clueless about all this [still no sources from Rue, just Rue rants] have failed to watch Mark Basile describe the nanothermite.

Steel is spelled 'steel'. Rue. I'm not surprised that you can't even get that right. eutectoid steel is a different animal. 

I mean eutectic steel as described by FEMA and all the other scientists who deal with 911 and its science. 

==============

M-W:

Definition of eutectic

1 of an alloy or solution :  having the lowest melting point possible

===============

Mixing sulfur into thermite creates thermate which lowers the melting point of steel by about 1000F.

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

So what created the molten/vaporized steel found at WTC? WTCs 1, 2 and 7 all experienced this eutectic steel, leaving it in a molten/vaporized state, pictures of which I have provided numerous times?

Here is a picture of it. From FEMA

Your continued exercise of calling people liars when you disagree with them simply shows you to be childish when responding.

Next, the fact I misspelled steel stel, doesn't mean I do not know how to spell idiot or moron.

Next, and it really is painful sometimes to read the intensity of the idiocy, the example you used shows eutectic refers to a heating point process. There is no such thing as eutectic steel. It refers to a heating point process. You really do need to understand the difference between euctoid and euctic and find out how they are properly used and stop blindly repeating things you can't grasp. I have tried to give you examples of the two but I doubt you will be able to understand them precisely because while you attack me and others for not being scientists, neither are you and for that matter you are no metallurgist, chemist, structural engineer either. In fact its clear you have no clue what scientific methodology is, the difference between fact and theory nor are you capable of engaging in deductive reasoning or critical analysis. What you do is repeat verbatim what you read, and when people disagree with its conclusions, try down them and me out by calling us liars.

Your comment steel is steel again is sheer nonsense.. There's all kinds of steels with different composites, structures and strengths.

You just can not grasp that to prove something means engaging in a methodological process whereby you create a cause and effect situation. You control the atmosphere an environment, then create the chain of events you want to show it will cause an effect, then when the effect is produced, try it again, to make sure the testing to get to that effect was accurate.

That's a process your brain clearly can not understand because you keep quoting articles about theories, not empirical tests and until you do, you have nothing but conjecture, speculation, subjective opinions not based on proof of anything.

The articles and pictures you keep showing did  not and do not prove the existence of nanothermites. The person you quote assumes they do because of their components but he' never been able to nor will he ever be able to rule out they are paint chips.

Those components he found  also exist in paint chips and the people you quote have never produced any testing to rule out they are not paint chips because they can not. Its not scientifically possible. You then  come on this forum posing that paint chips don't have the same composite as alleged nano-thermites and asked me to prove that-like I have to prove what paint chips are made of when its public knowledge. No one, no even the people you quote deny the composite of pain chips is the same as their nano-thermites. Not one. In fact they fully acknowledge they are the same something you come on this forum and try deny and then demand I provide the proof your arbitrary denial is not just that. Lol. No I do not have to explain what the components of paint chips are any more than I do water. They are public knowledge.

Then you have the audacity to claim you are referring to 7 scientists. Really. List their names. Better still list the testing they used to rule out the nano-thermites they "found" I- were not paint chips; 2-came from the WTC when they obtained them second hand from people they won't disclose! Better still-explain why these "7" scientists, refused to hand over their samples to independent researchers to examine?

Lol, good luck. 7. What is that a lucky number?

Also get back to me when you can figure out what eutectoid and eutectic mean and the processes they refer to  and yes idiot is spelled idiot, steel, steel, pin-head, pin-head, and so on and lawyer I guess for you is spelled liar.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

I suppose if one chants Hari Krishna loud enough it drowns out the laughter.

Hotty stated and I quot "steel is steel".

This is why we created many Yiddish words including putz, yutz,  oy vey,.

 

site: https://www.thebalance.com/steel-grades-2340174

 

"According to the World Steel Association, there are over 3,500 different grades of steel, encompassing unique physical, chemical, and environmental properties.In essence, steel is composed of iron and carbon, although it is the amount of carbon, as well as the level of impurities and additional alloying elements that determine the properties of each steel grade."

 

" trying to tell someone with a hole in their head they are transparent is pointless but its fun to fly a kite through."

Rue 1212