Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions

page: 16
133
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
AE911 Engineer does for Free what NIST (Feds) couldn't do with Millions


Open's a bottle of beer with his teeth?




posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by projectnsearch
 


I for one would like to discover more information about the micro-nukes theory. As with any other theory, it raises a lot of questions but without a serious forum, they're unlikely to be researched sufficiently. I've noticed that debunkers use a few arguments based on the Hiroshima-experience and early above-ground nuclear test plus the usual "you must be an idiot" tactics. Everyone else tends to steer clear possibly for fear of being branded as a "tin-hatter."

When I first encountered the "beam weapon," I took time to research it and finally realised that there were fatal flaws with that theory. Likewise, the nano-thermite theory was interesting but once again fell to the wayside because of sufficient evidence that, if used at all, it wasn't a big player in the overall demolition.

I eventually discount any theory where I have to make a huge mental leap to get past the physical and eyewitness evidence. That's why I don't accept an aircraft (of any type) crashing into the Pentagon, or the twin towers collapsing due to aircraft impact and resulting fires. The question of why someone would do such a thing or chance being found out are of secondary importance and should be uncovered in the inquest.

When investigating a suspicious death, the coroner will first consider the physical evidence to establish how the death occurred. Only later will motive or opportunity be considered.

This brings me back to micro nukes. This interesting article on the subject, Nuclear Demolition - Part 3. How does a modern nuclear demolition work? gives the reader plenty to think about but not a lot of supporting references. However, I've yet to check out the additional URLs. One point that it does make is that the underground explosion would have prevented any EMP which, if correct, would rule out an EMP as the cause of the melted cars. On the other hand, it would explain why there wasn't any interference to video cameras at the time of demolition.

I will continue looking into this and hopefully people who can intelligently discuss the subject will get involved.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Good work!

Makes me happy to know there are people out there who are willing spend time and money to test parts of this theory.



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
So I was looking over this thread and I noticed something was completely missing.

A "debunking."


Does this mean all the resident "debunkers" here now accept the FACT that their "the drywall caused the corrosion" theory was proven wrong?

Or are they still trying to come up with a new version to replace the one tested in the OP?



posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by projectnsearch
The micro nuke theory is the best by far.


Just when you thought you had heard all the silly conspiracy theories about 911, someone comes up with an even sillier one. Now we have silent hush a boom micro nukes, that produce zero radiation, zero thermal effect, zero seismic signature, zero noise and no onenoticed them going off!


Some of the ppl involved in the "truth movement" are not there to help it.

All they have to do is act insane and discredit the movement.

en.wikipedia.org...

It has happened before as far back as the 60's and was proven
as a method used by the government when it was proven
that Oswald had worked for the US government as covert operative.

Operation Northwoods shows that lies are the order of the day,
Operation Gladio as well.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

This type of action has been going on long before the US even existed.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I fgor one am really disappointed that people have entered speculative theories about 'what brought the towers down' in this thread. As I started reading through it, I was praying that no one would say "it was energy weapons'' or ''mini nukes did it'' because we have no proof of either of these things.

The OP was very interesting and deserved to be left as it was, evidence that we can prove! Now this thread has been derailed with theories that we can't prove and it is very sad. The 'debunkers' have a field day with 'wacky theories'.

Had everyone kept their mouths shut about what actually did bring the towers down then the skeptics would have had NOTHING.

Such a shame... I hope we can learn something from this... Probably not but one can hope.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wide-Eyes
 


It still doesn't matter because any person of average intelligence can see that mini-nuke theories have nothing to do with what the OP proved. In other words I think most people intuitively can tell what a straw-man argument is, even if they've never heard the term. It's in the same category as "common sense."

And anyone of even average intelligence can see that the crushed-up drywall theory to explain the melted steel, is demonstrably lacking.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Very true, thank you for the reply.

It cheered me up.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So I was looking over this thread and I noticed something was completely missing.

A "debunking."


Does this mean all the resident "debunkers" here now accept the FACT that their "the drywall caused the corrosion" theory was proven wrong?

Or are they still trying to come up with a new version to replace the one tested in the OP?


Neither, I watched this video again on your request and found it was the same one as I had seen before. This is not an experiment and it's easy to see where potential problems occur. At the conclusion of the burn, the narrator mentions that some chunks of unmelted aluminium still exists. This indicates temperatures barely exceeded the melting temperature of aluminium. This is not a high enough temperature as far as I know. It needs to be a good couple of hundred degrees C hotter.

Of course, i'm no metallurgist, but I don't need to be to criticise this 'experiment'.

In an experiment, you set out your test case beforehand, and the expected procedure and conclusion. You use instruments to determine if your experiment succeded and whether your procedure is producing the expected effects.

There was no instrumentation in this test, no steel analysis was performed, no analysis of the gypsum. We do not know what temperatures were reached in this experiment, nor do we have any analysis of the steel either before or after the experiment.

This is basically (and rather aptly) a straw man. Nobody is making the claim that if you just put a bunch of materials together next to steel and set it on fire, the steel beam will erode into nothing. A proper scientific experiment would first seek to replicate this to determine what conditions are required. By ignoring this and simply providing a nice visual aid to people who already believe in an alternate theory, this cannot be classed as a scientific experiment.

If you wish to see what sort of analysis a proper scientific experiment requires, please see any of NISTs burn tests. In these they not only instrument for temperature, but they try various different configurations of inflammables and fire loadings, and match these to simulated results in order that they may experiment with various parameters without requiring more physical tests.

In conclusion, this was not an experiment, it was a poorly thought out demonstration which will convince only those who are already convinced, and no analysis was conducted to determine results, except for a trivial visual inspection.

I hope this is satisfactory as a response, as this is about the best you are probably going to get



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Neither, I watched this video again on your request and found it was the same one as I had seen before. This is not an experiment and it's easy to see where potential problems occur. At the conclusion of the burn, the narrator mentions that some chunks of unmelted aluminium still exists.


Even NIST was more careful with their science than this. You can't generalize temperatures for the whole pile just because of what is found in one location in it. Because of the size of pile and its materials, it's more than just possible that areas were more insulated from the flame than others, it's proven by the fact that most of the aluminum was melted.

And what would it matter anyway? What is the critical difference between this environment and Ground Zero, that one would allegedly produce molten steel naturally while the experiment shows nothing of the sort happened? There was aluminum, drywall, all the raw materials that would have been present at Ground Zero that according to "debunkers" caused a eutectic reaction of molten iron to spontaneously take place.


In an experiment, you set out your test case beforehand, and the expected procedure and conclusion. You use instruments to determine if your experiment succeded and whether your procedure is producing the expected effects.


That's exactly what he did. And btw you don't have to guess what's going to happen. That is part of forming a hypothesis, which is helpful in coming up with a theory, but in this case the theories already existed and were simply being put to the test. The procedure was demonstrated in the video as were the results, which are measurable with your eyeballs when you look at the steel and compare. Very basic stuff.

What you are arguing is that it has to be dressed up in a fancy suit to be science, that you have to have fancy equipment and a lab and all of that I suppose. Not so. Everything is there: theories to be tested, procedure that is shown, results which are shown, and everything is laid out so that you can reproduce it all yourself and see if you can come up with something different.



I hope this is satisfactory as a response, as this is about the best you are probably going to get


I know, and it was a good try.

And this is why no one cares what you think the "truth movement" should do on the other thread. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, you automatically go into discredit and deny mode.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You can't generalize temperatures for the whole pile just because of what is found in one location in it. Because of the size of pile and its materials, it's more than just possible that areas were more insulated from the flame than others, it's proven by the fact that most of the aluminum was melted.

And what would it matter anyway? What is the critical difference between this environment and Ground Zero, that one would allegedly produce molten steel naturally while the experiment shows nothing of the sort happened?

That's the very point I'm trying to illustrate. We cannot tell what the differences were for two reasons:

  • There was no instrumentation of the test, so we do not know what temperatures were reached, if the gypsum did degrade into sulfur etc.

  • The established procedure for causing this damage has not been ascertained, so even if the test were instrumented we couldn't compare it with these conditions.

edit: I apologise for the formatting of the above list, I am not sure of the correct code to add a bullet point before each one.


There was aluminum, drywall, all the raw materials that would have been present at Ground Zero that according to "debunkers" caused a eutectic reaction of molten iron to spontaneously take place.

According to FEMA and NIST mostly, and it wasn't spontaneous either.


That's exactly what he did. And btw you don't have to guess what's going to happen. That is part of forming a hypothesis, which is helpful in coming up with a theory, but in this case the theories already existed and were simply being put to the test.

This statement contradicts itself. He did not instrument the test, and as you say he is trying to test a theory, not develop a hypothesis. For theory testing you must have expectations of the experiment more specific than 'some steel will get holes in it'


The procedure was demonstrated in the video as were the results, which are measurable with your eyeballs when you look at the steel and compare. Very basic stuff.

A visual inspection is not a convincing analysis when we are discussing sulfur causing intragranular melting. You need to remove steel samples and study them under a microscope to determine if sulfur has formed and if it has intruded into the metal.


What you are arguing is that it has to be dressed up in a fancy suit to be science, that you have to have fancy equipment and a lab and all of that I suppose. Not so. Everything is there: theories to be tested, procedure that is shown, results which are shown, and everything is laid out so that you can reproduce it all yourself and see if you can come up with something different.

I'm sorry but backyard science is called backyard science for a reason. I appreciate that you would very much like this to be convincing proof, but it is as I said, nothing more than a demonstration to reinforce the beliefs of the already convinced.


I know, and it was a good try.

Why thanks, and I must say you certainly are putting your point forward well, there is little ambiguity.


And this is why no one cares what you think the "truth movement" should do on the other thread. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, you automatically go into discredit and deny mode.

This is where we diverge seriously though. In what way am I discrediting or denying? I'm pointing out legitimate problems with this 'experiment'. Hell NIST gets criticised when they didn't build a full scale model of the towers and try and destroy it. I don't think my criticisms are particularly trivial.

edit on 12-9-2010 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by bsbray11
And what would it matter anyway? What is the critical difference between this environment and Ground Zero, that one would allegedly produce molten steel naturally while the experiment shows nothing of the sort happened?

That's the very point I'm trying to illustrate. We cannot tell what the differences were for two reasons:

  • There was no instrumentation of the test, so we do not know what temperatures were reached, if the gypsum did degrade into sulfur etc.

  • The established procedure for causing this damage has not been ascertained, so even if the test were instrumented we couldn't compare it with these conditions.


These are problems with the theory being tested, not the experiment itself.

Remember he did this to test a theory you "debunkers" are always espousing, that the melted steel FEMA found came from the rubble piles. And then they say the sulfur came from drywall that was broken down from being wet, attached itself to the steel somehow, and then somehow managed to melt iron, etc. etc.

What has been ascertained, is that the theory most often given by "debunkers" is at best unrealistically simplistic, at worst outright wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree.

Also I was wondering, where do you think all the extreme temperatures in the rubble pile came from in the first place? What caused those fires to be so much hotter than the most efficient open-atmosphere fires? And keep in mind clean-up worker testimony that fires underneath the pile were oxygen-starved and would not flame up until they were exposed to oxygen.



This statement contradicts itself. He did not instrument the test, and as you say he is trying to test a theory, not develop a hypothesis. For theory testing you must have expectations of the experiment more specific than 'some steel will get holes in it'


This is complete nonsense. The man who did all of this could have said anything he pleased before doing what he did, and the outcome would have been exactly the same.


A visual inspection is not a convincing analysis when we are discussing sulfur causing intragranular melting.


Inter-granular melting that was readily visible in the surface of the steel FEMA analyzed. FEMA says this themselves. There is no visual match whatsoever between the I-beam that comes out of this test, and what FEMA analyzed.


You need to remove steel samples and study them under a microscope to determine if sulfur has formed and if it has intruded into the metal.


Again, re-read the relevant part of the FEMA report and look at their photos.


I'm sorry but backyard science is called backyard science for a reason. I appreciate that you would very much like this to be convincing proof, but it is as I said, nothing more than a demonstration to reinforce the beliefs of the already convinced.


He took an I-beam. He covered it in drywall chunks, drywall dust, soaked with rain water so it had time to break down, he added aluminum, he wrapped it all around the I-beam with wire, and he burned it for days. It didn't turn the I-beam into swiss cheese. That's case closed on a ridiculous theory that never had any evidence going for it in the first place, it was just something internet "debunkers" came up with to cover their asses.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, I am debugging software for work and it is an absolute nightmare



Originally posted by bsbray11
These are problems with the theory being tested, not the experiment itself.

This is a problem with both the theory and the experiment. The theory is not developed significantly enough to allow trivial testing, and this person's testing was so trivial it produced no usable results.


Remember he did this to test a theory you "debunkers" are always espousing, that the melted steel FEMA found came from the rubble piles. And then they say the sulfur came from drywall that was broken down from being wet, attached itself to the steel somehow, and then somehow managed to melt iron, etc. etc.

At the very least, the FEMA report speculates as to temperatures reached. The NIST report also goes into some depth. At the absolute minimum this test should have been instrumented for temperature. I don't see how you can deny this as if no area of the steel exceeded 700C then no melting would have occured. We need to know this information to see if this experiment even could reproduce the results.


What has been ascertained, is that the theory most often given by "debunkers" is at best unrealistically simplistic, at worst outright wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree.

Well I agree it is simplistic, the actual chemistry involved is quite a bit above my level, but that does not excuse this sort of 'experiment'.


Also I was wondering, where do you think all the extreme temperatures in the rubble pile came from in the first place? What caused those fires to be so much hotter than the most efficient open-atmosphere fires?

The temperatures required were not extreme, but it is irrelevant as we have no information at all for the temperature in this test. It's possible that this test actually exceeded the required temperature. Chemical reactions often do only occur in narrow temperature bands. Without instrumentation, we cannot tell.


And keep in mind clean-up worker testimony that fires underneath the pile were oxygen-starved and would not flame up until they were exposed to oxygen.

As far as I know this was an offhand comment (not testimony in any sense) of one clean up worker. It hardly serves as compelling evidence as to the state of the whole rubble pile, and bear in mind that a total of 2 pieces like this were recovered total.


This is complete nonsense. The man who did all of this could have said anything he pleased before doing what he did, and the outcome would have been exactly the same.

Experimental results are not 'saying anything you please'. It is detailing the various events which should occur if the theory holds true. For example, if several experiments were run, at a certain temperature we should begin to see the gypsum degrade to a sulphur compound. Now this might require a certain atmospheric concentration of carbon monoxide for example. This sort of thing needs to be rigorously defined if you want to call this an experiment.


Inter-granular melting that was readily visible in the surface of the steel FEMA analyzed. FEMA says this themselves. There is no visual match whatsoever between the I-beam that comes out of this test, and what FEMA analyzed.

That's true, but again how is this a convincing test when we don't know any of the criteria? If analysis had showed a slight amount of intergranular penetration, then variables could be modified to see if the effect became stronger. No investigation was done though, so we have no clue what happened other than 'it didnt have big holes in it'.


He took an I-beam. He covered it in drywall chunks, drywall dust, soaked with rain water so it had time to break down, he added aluminum, he wrapped it all around the I-beam with wire, and he burned it for days. It didn't turn the I-beam into swiss cheese. That's case closed on a ridiculous theory that never had any evidence going for it in the first place, it was just something internet "debunkers" came up with to cover their asses.

This is a massive straw man. Nobody is stating that any random configuration of these elements will definitely destroy a beam in X amount of hours. A total of 2 pieces were found with this sort of erosion, out of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of steel components. That alone suggests this is a rare effect requiring specific conditions. None of this was investigated. None of this was tested for. All that was done was to burn a lot of wood and claim that it was representative, but with none of the data to actually show it.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
i often think....

not to add to the mysteries of disinformation or misinformation, this is merely speculative...

that possibly, just maybe, perhaps there are chemicals that exist that the general public does not know about. in fact, i'm pretty sure there are. being trained to the level of hazardous materials incident commander myself, and experience gained with on job training, i'm pretty sure such things may indeed exist.

this is my professional opinion,
et

edit on 12-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: change possible to possibly



edit on 12-9-2010 by Esoteric Teacher because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is a problem with both the theory and the experiment. The theory is not developed significantly enough to allow trivial testing, and this person's testing was so trivial it produced no usable results.


It produced one "usable" result: no one can say the tested concoction alone produced steel that looked like swiss cheese. What was performed during the experiment was obviously not what actually caused it at the WTC.


I don't see how you can deny this as if no area of the steel exceeded 700C then no melting would have occured.


Steel does not melt until almost 1400 C. FEMA is talking about temperatures around 1000 C, "which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel" according to appendix C.




What has been ascertained, is that the theory most often given by "debunkers" is at best unrealistically simplistic, at worst outright wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree.

Well I agree it is simplistic, the actual chemistry involved is quite a bit above my level, but that does not excuse this sort of 'experiment'.


I would describe the various chemical events that are being imagined by "debunkers" as convoluted. That is why it comes across as complicated and no one can seem to tell me how exactly the guy in the OP could have made the swiss cheese happen. Just like it would be complicated to try to explain anything using the wrong theory. Of course it would get very messy and there would be many complications.



Also I was wondering, where do you think all the extreme temperatures in the rubble pile came from in the first place? What caused those fires to be so much hotter than the most efficient open-atmosphere fires?

The temperatures required were not extreme


Steel itself being heated to 1000 C is not extreme? The only thing in an oxygenated, perfectly efficient hydrocarbon fire that even approaches 1000 C is the flashover temperature which is short-lived by its nature. Otherwise you max out around 700-800 C with these fires.


but it is irrelevant as we have no information at all for the temperature in this test.


I can say with a great degree of certainty that the fire in the OP did not approach a sustained 1000 C, if it ever reached 1000 C anywhere at all. And this is with someone intentionally piling on fuel and letting it burn for days.



Experimental results are not 'saying anything you please'.


Experimental results are not saying anything at all. They are what is shown by the experiment. It's when he shows you that I-beam. He could stand there and speak gibberish and that beam is going to look exactly the same, and is going to have experienced the exact same conditions.



Inter-granular melting that was readily visible in the surface of the steel FEMA analyzed. FEMA says this themselves. There is no visual match whatsoever between the I-beam that comes out of this test, and what FEMA analyzed.

That's true, but again how is this a convincing test when we don't know any of the criteria?


The visual match (or lack thereof) between his I-beam and FEMA's samples would be one of the criteria for judging the results of this, and the easiest and most obvious if it successfully reproduced the WTC samples.


This is a massive straw man. Nobody is stating that any random configuration of these elements will definitely destroy a beam in X amount of hours.


It is not a straw-man because no one is stating any specific configuration or ratios between compounds or any of that. It goes back to the "debunker" theories themselves being vague. When they come up with a more exact theory, that is more testable, then you will get more exact tests.


A total of 2 pieces were found with this sort of erosion, out of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of steel components.


The hundreds of thousands of pieces of steel are irrelevant because no one looked at all of them. You have a few hundred at best that were analyzed by FEMA or NIST, and I'm not talking about looking at it while you're loading it into a truck to haul it off.


All that was done was to burn a lot of wood and claim that it was representative, but with none of the data to actually show it.


If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?

edit on 12-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
The majority of the post I am responding to is just a repeat of previous points along with the claim that somehow despite it being not instrumented, it's still valid just to guess at the temperatures involved. You don't accept the educated opinions of hundreds of scientists who worked on the NIST report, but you accept your own speculation about the temperature of the fire, even when you don't know for sure.

You claim certain temperatures are achievable in fires, but you don't supply any information for this, and you haven't investigated NISTs fire tests either apparently.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?

It was steel of indeterminate strength, covered in drywall of indeterminate construction, with additional elements added in unspecified ratios. It was heated to an unspecified temperature in an unspecified atmosphere, and maintained at that temperature for an indetermined time.

In no sense was this a scientific experiment, and no amount of 'visual inspection' will tell you the facts we need to know. I'm sorry but that's where I must exit this thread. If you're just going to repeat that no matter how little information we have, it's testing some theory then you are wrong quite plain and simple. The fact that you go on to blame 'debunkers' for not being specific enough is quite hilarious, as since when are debunkers advocating a positive position here?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Thank you for highlighting this enlightening video. Much kudos and good karma to the guy who designed and carried out the experiment!

I wonder how the debunkers have responded; I'll have a look through the thread now. I noticed there were none present on page 1



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The majority of the post I am responding to is just a repeat of previous points along with the claim that somehow despite it being not instrumented, it's still valid just to guess at the temperatures involved. You don't accept the educated opinions of hundreds of scientists who worked on the NIST report, but you accept your own speculation about the temperature of the fire, even when you don't know for sure.

You claim certain temperatures are achievable in fires, but you don't supply any information for this, and you haven't investigated NISTs fire tests either apparently.


Originally posted by bsbray11
If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?

It was steel of indeterminate strength, covered in drywall of indeterminate construction, with additional elements added in unspecified ratios. It was heated to an unspecified temperature in an unspecified atmosphere, and maintained at that temperature for an indetermined time.

In no sense was this a scientific experiment, and no amount of 'visual inspection' will tell you the facts we need to know. I'm sorry but that's where I must exit this thread. If you're just going to repeat that no matter how little information we have, it's testing some theory then you are wrong quite plain and simple. The fact that you go on to blame 'debunkers' for not being specific enough is quite hilarious, as since when are debunkers advocating a positive position here?


Do you really think those NIST guys were gonna report any damning evidence against the expected outcome?

I don't, there were a few that saw disagreed with the OCT and they soon left because their integrity was in Jeopardy. Some people will man up and refuse to tow the preferred line. Not many though...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Do you really think those NIST guys were gonna report any damning evidence against the expected outcome?

Do you really think there was an 'expected outcome'? NIST corrected many inaccurate views of what happened that day, put out by official and non official sources.


I don't, there were a few that saw disagreed with the OCT and they soon left because their integrity was in Jeopardy. Some people will man up and refuse to tow the preferred line. Not many though...

Can you name someone who left NIST during this period, and who does not support a 'damage + fire = collapse' hypothesis please?



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
The majority of the post I am responding to is just a repeat of previous points along with the claim that somehow despite it being not instrumented, it's still valid just to guess at the temperatures involved.


And to repeat, even if you knew the temperatures present, you still wouldn't know what to do with them.

The theory being tested was not well-defined enough to know at what temperature this reaction would supposedly occur. The whole idea that you could cause this reaction this way is complete speculation.


You don't accept the educated opinions of hundreds of scientists who worked on the NIST report


I've seen who worked on that report and this is a complete mis-characterization. There were a handful of editors who had ultimate say in what was presented, such as John Gross. You know most people who did any work on that report only made petty contributions, not far removed from a team of people working to publish a book but only 1 person writing it. To suggest hundreds of scientists got to have actual equal say and input on the reporting findings is very misleading.


but you accept your own speculation about the temperature of the fire, even when you don't know for sure.


For the 3rd or 4th time, you wouldn't know the significant of the temperature data in regards to this theory even if it was recorded. There was no need to take that measurement. You are harping on an irrelevant point, over and over.


You claim certain temperatures are achievable in fires, but you don't supply any information for this


If you want to see realistic temperatures that steel will reach in these kinds of fires, look up the Cardington tests. There, information for you to research if you really want to.



Originally posted by bsbray11
If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?

It was steel of indeterminate strength, covered in drywall of indeterminate construction, with additional elements added in unspecified ratios. It was heated to an unspecified temperature in an unspecified atmosphere, and maintained at that temperature for an indetermined time.


Sounds like a perfect match to the theory being tested. Which again, you "debunkers" came up with, without ever testing, in the first place.

Have you come up with a more exact theory yet?









 
133
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join