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

page: 17
133
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by exponent

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'?


YES.

They STARTED with the hypothesis that fires and planes brought down the towers, and did their entire investigation from there.

Did they ever test for explosives residues of any kind, at any point? NO, by their own admission. Why? Because they had already decided that never happened, before they even investigated the collapses. Neither did FEMA consider anything else.



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


There was a former NIST fire science division chief who thought their WTC report was unverified junk (which it obviously was) and he voiced his dissent publicly. James Quintiere. He endorsed a person theory of his instead, but more importantly agreed that a better investigation was needed.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
NIST lied about 911 because that was their job. They said fires caused the collapse and we know that the fires could never make the steel hot enough to collapse. In fact, the firefighters said there was so much molten steel running down the girder channels that it looked like a foundry in there! Where did the molten steel come from?

They were pulling molten steel from the debris pile for months after the collapse. Where did the molten steel come from since none of the material in that building can even come close to melting it? That fact alone was never covered in the NIST report because it was a whitewash just like the Warren Commission.

There is a LOT of evidence that micro nukes were used. Here's the evidence. Don't listen to anybody that says "it's impossible" because it is possible. Look at the evidence yourself!

www.project.nsearch.com...

Look at the videos. Dimitri Khalezov knows his stuff



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
To avoid repetition, I will make this answer very simple.


Originally posted by bsbray11
And to repeat, even if you knew the temperatures present, you still wouldn't know what to do with them.

Both FEMA and NISTs results contain information on temperature. Why wouldn't we be able to compare 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.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the reports and less time defending backyard bonfires as unassailable science.


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.

This means nothing. You claim that I said some sort of 'equal say and input' which I did not. If the editors of the NIST report changed the conclusions of the engineers, then they would speak up. It would be required for professional integrity. Hell you complain at me when I try and understand your thought process, imagine if I claimed to speak for you as well.


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.

Oh wait so now the NIST tests of offices aren't acceptable either are they? Boy you just keep digging this hole of yours deeper and deeper.


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

Yeah it's totally our fault that this guy had a terrible attempt at an experiment. I mean if only we would have pointed him to a report that details the chemical reactions involved.


Have you come up with a more exact theory yet?

Oh I can easily get much more exact than that experiment. Hell I'm not a chemist but I am convinced a high school student could design a better experiment. Every one I know can.


They STARTED with the hypothesis that fires and planes brought down the towers, and did their entire investigation from there.

Did they ever test for explosives residues of any kind, at any point? NO, by their own admission. Why? Because they had already decided that never happened, before they even investigated the collapses. Neither did FEMA consider anything else.

That's not what NIST admitted, and of course you have no evidence for this. Weren't you having a go at me for speculation just a page ago?


There was a former NIST fire science division chief who thought their WTC report was unverified junk (which it obviously was) and he voiced his dissent publicly. James Quintiere. He endorsed a person theory of his instead, but more importantly agreed that a better investigation was needed.

So someone who didn't work there at the time, and who doesn't agree with controlled demolition. Not very convincing evidence that NIST scientists knew something was wrong eh?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlennCanady
NIST lied about 911 because that was their job. They said fires caused the collapse and we know that the fires could never make the steel hot enough to collapse. In fact, the firefighters said there was so much molten steel running down the girder channels that it looked like a foundry in there! Where did the molten steel come from?

We know for a fact that the fires did get hot enough to damage the steel because we have pictures from the day of this occuring. What the firefighters reported as molten steel probably wasn't. Steel certainly could have gotten red / yellow hot, but it's pretty unlikely it completely melted, and we don't have any beams that are partially melted as far as I know. Not in the same way you're talking anyhow.


There is a LOT of evidence that micro nukes were used. Here's the evidence. Don't listen to anybody that says "it's impossible" because it is possible. Look at the evidence yourself!

Oh I won't say it's impossible, just that there's no such thing as a micro-nuke.

Perhaps you don't understand how heat works. You can't just heat up a liquid continuously and keep it as a liquid. It will boil and evaporate. If the steel was heated in seconds to a temperature it maintained for weeks, it would have evaporated. I don't remember the huge clouds of evaporated steel on that day, perhaps you do.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
To avoid repetition, I will make this answer very simple.


Repeating yourself endlessly is not what I am looking for, just so you know. I am going to end up repeating myself in every post too and we will just keep re-iterating our differences ad infinitum.



Originally posted by bsbray11
And to repeat, even if you knew the temperatures present, you still wouldn't know what to do with them.

Both FEMA and NISTs results contain information on temperature. Why wouldn't we be able to compare them?


They don't describe the temperatures required for the reaction itself to occur. That is why the data would be meaningless for testing this theory. FEMA explicitly says they don't know what caused it, they only talk about the maximum temperature that the section reached.



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.

Perhaps you should spend more time reading the reports and less time defending backyard bonfires as unassailable science.


This is a cop-out response and has nothing to do with FEMA's lack of a well-defined theory, and everyone else's lack of a well-defined theory. Why don't you want to acknowledge the fact that the "drywall melted the steel" theory isn't a legitimate scientific theory to begin with?



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.

This means nothing. You claim that I said some sort of 'equal say and input' which I did not.


Then what does it matter if "hundreds of scientists" worked on the report if in reality most of them did trivial work on it anyway?


If the editors of the NIST report changed the conclusions of the engineers, then they would speak up.


The editors of the NIST report WERE the engineers who decided their hypotheses. That is what I just told you. Not all of the people working on it were sitting around theorizing this stuff and throwing around ideas with each other. They had computer desk jobs and all the other trivial stuff you would expect from such an agency writing such a report.



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.

Oh wait so now the NIST tests of offices aren't acceptable either are they? Boy you just keep digging this hole of yours deeper and deeper.


You're the one digging your own grave. The tests you are thinking of, NIST called calibrations for their computer simulations, and they did NOT verify NIST's hypothesis in the least. They contradicted it by the fact that their mechanism didn't present itself at all, despite them using megawatt burners and achieving high temperatures in the steel. Want to go back and dig up the specifics yourself and lay them out here so we can see?



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

Yeah it's totally our fault that this guy had a terrible attempt at an experiment. I mean if only we would have pointed him to a report that details the chemical reactions involved.


Exactly. You are being sarcastic but that's exactly what should have happened. But no legitimate theory even exists. So all he had to test, was garbage. That's his fault? No, that's exactly what he MEANT to demonstrate to you, so you "debunkers" can't keep sitting in your comfy armchairs pretending you already figured it out.



Have you come up with a more exact theory yet?

Oh I can easily get much more exact than that experiment. Hell I'm not a chemist but I am convinced a high school student could design a better experiment. Every one I know can.


Glad to hear that. Then it should be cake for you to do it yourself and make the drywall melt holes in the steel.



They STARTED with the hypothesis that fires and planes brought down the towers, and did their entire investigation from there.

Did they ever test for explosives residues of any kind, at any point? NO, by their own admission. Why? Because they had already decided that never happened, before they even investigated the collapses. Neither did FEMA consider anything else.

That's not what NIST admitted, and of course you have no evidence for this. Weren't you having a go at me for speculation just a page ago?


NIST didn't admit they didn't test for explosives, and I have no evidence for this?

Here you go, eat your own words again. I guess you'll be retro-actively changing your arguments once again in the next post. Who has to be intellectually dishonest in these kinds of debates anyway? The person who can't logically defend themselves.


12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.


wtc.nist.gov...

And if you look at questions 2, 4, 5, and 11 on that same FAQ, you will see they didn't bother to verify any of those things scientifically either. Saying that the bursts of debris and dust coming from the building from floors below the collapsing area were "puffs of air" is hogwash and no different than anyone else just watching a YouTube video and telling you what they think they're looking at. etc.


So someone who didn't work there at the time, and who doesn't agree with controlled demolition. Not very convincing evidence that NIST scientists knew something was wrong eh?


It isn't a question of whether or not "NIST scientists knew something was wrong." It's a matter of what their reports showed, ie the actual science. Which is non-existent.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Repeating yourself endlessly is not what I am looking for, just so you know. I am going to end up repeating myself in every post too and we will just keep re-iterating our differences ad infinitum.

What you're looking for is not my concern. We will not end up with a constant repetition because I am capable of seeing you are not interested in being convinced.


They don't describe the temperatures required for the reaction itself to occur. That is why the data would be meaningless for testing this theory. FEMA explicitly says they don't know what caused it, they only talk about the maximum temperature that the section reached.

This does not make proper experimentation impossible. Science would have no purpose if we already knew every variable before we tested them.


This is a cop-out response and has nothing to do with FEMA's lack of a well-defined theory, and everyone else's lack of a well-defined theory. Why don't you want to acknowledge the fact that the "drywall melted the steel" theory isn't a legitimate scientific theory to begin with?

I'm perfectly happy to admit that it isn't the most complete of theories, but I would remind you that 'magical super silent thermite burned the beams but didnt melt them and did not spatter or show any evidence' is not a particularly convincing theory either. It's not like controlled demolition is the theory we revert to if we haven't got any other, it's something you have to prove. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.


Then what does it matter if "hundreds of scientists" worked on the report if in reality most of them did trivial work on it anyway?

Have you even read the report? Large sections were dedicated to outside engineering firms, but of course I guess all of these people were magically paid off too.


You're the one digging your own grave. The tests you are thinking of, NIST called calibrations for their computer simulations, and they did NOT verify NIST's hypothesis in the least. They contradicted it by the fact that their mechanism didn't present itself at all, despite them using megawatt burners and achieving high temperatures in the steel. Want to go back and dig up the specifics yourself and lay them out here so we can see?

I don't need to. I know that you have read them, we both know that I have answered these questions in the past, explained how you were wrong and detailed the simulation process to you. The fact that you repeat the same arguments as if this knowledge did not exist does not change the facts of the case. These simulations were carried out with proper scientific procedures, and showed exactly what you do not want to believe.


Exactly. You are being sarcastic but that's exactly what should have happened. But no legitimate theory even exists. So all he had to test, was garbage. That's his fault? No, that's exactly what he MEANT to demonstrate to you

Oh yes of course, I mean what does anyone like better than wasting two days and a lot of firewood on a worthless experiment, and then uploading it to youtube as a serious one. Yes this is a completely convincing explanation, not an attempt at backtracking at all.


Glad to hear that. Then it should be cake for you to do it yourself and make the drywall melt holes in the steel.

Sure, I'll be expecting you to deliver the bobcat and firewood then, wanna set a date?


NIST didn't admit they didn't test for explosives, and I have no evidence for this?

You have no evidence of a predetermined conclusion, you just know that there cannot be any evidence against it, so you state it as a way of heaping doubt upon a report that disagrees with you. Whether you disagree or not, you have no evidence of impropriety .


It isn't a question of whether or not "NIST scientists knew something was wrong." It's a matter of what their reports showed, ie the actual science. Which is non-existent.

I leave the above statement here purely for irony.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
The Federal Government spent less than $700,000 on the 9-11 investigation! Not Millions.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
We will not end up with a constant repetition because I am capable of seeing you are not interested in being convinced.


I am not interested in being convinced of the nonsense you've been posting, right.



They don't describe the temperatures required for the reaction itself to occur. That is why the data would be meaningless for testing this theory. FEMA explicitly says they don't know what caused it, they only talk about the maximum temperature that the section reached.

This does not make proper experimentation impossible. Science would have no purpose if we already knew every variable before we tested them.


It still requires additional steps before conducting the experiment you want to see. You still have to come up with a more defined theory as to how this melting occurred.

So far you haven't even tried to offer even an educated guess as to how the steel was melted by the drywall, that isn't already debunked by the OP's video.


This is a cop-out response and has nothing to do with FEMA's lack of a well-defined theory, and everyone else's lack of a well-defined theory. Why don't you want to acknowledge the fact that the "drywall melted the steel" theory isn't a legitimate scientific theory to begin with?

I'm perfectly happy to admit that it isn't the most complete of theories, but I would remind you that 'magical super silent thermite burned the beams but didnt melt them

The beam in FEMA appendix C was melted even by FEMA's own admission.


The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.


wtc.nist.gov...


and did not spatter or show any evidence


If there were no evidence of thermite then the above excerpt from FEMA would not exist.


A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.


en.wikipedia.org...

You must be telling me you see absolutely no relation between these two pieces of data if you think there is no evidence of this.

Here is further reading on different kinds of thermite reactions: www.journalof911studies.com...



is not a particularly convincing theory either.


Compared to the government reports it's a hell of a lot more convincing.


It's not like controlled demolition is the theory we revert to if we haven't got any other, it's something you have to prove. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.


It's not hard to understand, but just because controlled demolition hasn't been proven down to every detail, what exactly was placed, where it was placed, when it was detonated or ignited, etc., etc., doesn't mean there aren't other indications already that point exactly in this direction. There are thousands of them, that you are already trained to dismiss out of hand with various unproven assertions ("who knows what those explosions were," "who knows what melted the steel," "who knows where the dust came from in those ejections during the Tower collapses"), and have never considered collectively, no doubt. You have to put it all together and look at the big picture for consideration, if you are at all able. I have looked at both sides like this and only one of them actually makes sense and fits with the majority of the data. WTC7 itself is the biggest smoking gun for this. You can't have a "progressive collapse" and accelerate at free-fall at the same time. Those columns were completely and totally destroyed before that building began free-falling into itself.



Then what does it matter if "hundreds of scientists" worked on the report if in reality most of them did trivial work on it anyway?

Have you even read the report? Large sections were dedicated to outside engineering firms, but of course I guess all of these people were magically paid off too.


Yes, I'm aware of the outsourcing. They outsourced to the same people that investigated the 1993 bombing and Oklahoma City too if I recall correctly. Let's just put it this way: The Nazis never outsourced their propaganda work to the Americans, did they?



Want to go back and dig up the specifics yourself and lay them out here so we can see?

I don't need to. I know that you have read them, we both know that I have answered these questions in the past, explained how you were wrong and detailed the simulation process to you.


Now you're lying again. You know NIST never validated their hypothesis and recreated their alleged mechanism physically. That is un-accept-able. That is not science. You have NEVER explained why I am "wrong" about this because there is nothing to be wrong about it.



Exactly. You are being sarcastic but that's exactly what should have happened. But no legitimate theory even exists. So all he had to test, was garbage. That's his fault? No, that's exactly what he MEANT to demonstrate to you

Oh yes of course, I mean what does anyone like better than wasting two days and a lot of firewood on a worthless experiment, and then uploading it to youtube as a serious one. Yes this is a completely convincing explanation, not an attempt at backtracking at all.


Again, all he was showing was how incompetent you "debunkers" are when you make up these off-the-cuff excuses with no scientific merit whatsoever.



Glad to hear that. Then it should be cake for you to do it yourself and make the drywall melt holes in the steel.

Sure, I'll be expecting you to deliver the bobcat and firewood then, wanna set a date?


Like I've said countless times before, I believe you would be wasting your time trying to prove this is what caused the steel to melt, because it was not the drywall that did it, as unbelievable as that may seem to you. It's not my theory, I think the theory is ridiculous.



NIST didn't admit they didn't test for explosives, and I have no evidence for this?

You have no evidence of a predetermined conclusion


Oh and now the goalposts shift after I show you NIST themselves admitting they never looked.

Their pre-determined conclusion is self-obvious from the fact that they never investigated anything else, never had any interest in investigating anything else, and said as much themselves.



It isn't a question of whether or not "NIST scientists knew something was wrong." It's a matter of what their reports showed, ie the actual science. Which is non-existent.

I leave the above statement here purely for irony.


And I remind you that you still haven't shown me where they ever tested their main hypothesis, the main point of their entire investigation. Because we both know they never did. And you, an "analyst," think this is science apparently.

Ironic is right. Actually more like depressing.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Steel certainly could have gotten red / yellow hot, but it's pretty unlikely it completely melted


No, it's impossible for it to have melted from those fires alone.


and we don't have any beams that are partially melted as far as I know.


This used to be a WTC beam:



It's one of the samples FEMA found to have suffered melting under a eutectic consisting of liquid iron, sulfur, and other elements.



I don't remember the huge clouds of evaporated steel on that day, perhaps you do.


For what it's worth, another analysis of the iron microspheres in the WTC dust:

www.darksideofgravity.com...

This paper actually concludes that while the tiny iron spheres are there, and do indicate that there were tons of this material in the dust, and that they must have formed from being melted, it's less likely that they are part of some thermite reaction and more likely part of some unknown mechanism that nonetheless resulted in the melting and dispersal of tons of steel/iron.

As I've always said, I don't know what exactly brought the Towers down, and we still need further investigation into all of these things.

But what has been made perfectly clear so far is that the feds have already tried to push the "planes and fires alone" theories as best as they knew how, and failed utterly at it, so that they were even too ashamed to try and verify their theories experimentally.

edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Same warning as in another thread, i've had a few drinks so this reply will probably be brief and a little terse.


Originally posted by bsbray11
I am not interested in being convinced of the nonsense you've been posting, right.

Which is why I'm not very interested in discussing it, I don't believe you evaluate what you read critically, you seem stuck to certain ideas which you don't prevent any reason for.


It still requires additional steps before conducting the experiment you want to see. You still have to come up with a more defined theory as to how this melting occurred.

Oh it's worse than that, it requires a whole different experiment. If I get time to complete this experiment I will have to heat the steel in a controlled manner and measure the temperature of surrounding gypsum, just to see if this is a viable mechanism for sulphur extraction.

Science is hard.


The beam in FEMA appendix C was melted even by FEMA's own admission.

Jesus christ we've already been over this! I had to post a freaking paragraph explaining to you that I have no problem with this at all. Why are you still persisting with this bizarre notion?


If there were no evidence of thermite then the above excerpt from FEMA would not exist.


A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.


en.wikipedia.org...

You must be telling me you see absolutely no relation between these two pieces of data if you think there is no evidence of this.

Thermate may be more effective at cutting through steel, but that does not change the mechanism it uses, which is an extremely high temperature attack. Evidence of which was not found by FEMA or NIST. What is the lowest reaction temperature you can find for a thermate mix?


Compared to the government reports it's a hell of a lot more convincing.

When you claim that a satirical theory is more convincing than years of research and experimentation then it is hard to take you seriously.


It's not hard to understand, but just because controlled demolition hasn't been proven down to every detail, what exactly was placed, where it was placed, when it was detonated or ignited, etc., etc., doesn't mean there aren't other indications already that point exactly in this direction. There are thousands of them, that you are already trained to dismiss out of hand with various unproven assertions ("who knows what those explosions were," "who knows what melted the steel," "who knows where the dust came from in those ejections during the Tower collapses"), and have never considered collectively, no doubt. You have to put it all together and look at the big picture for consideration, if you are at all able. I have looked at both sides like this and only one of them actually makes sense and fits with the majority of the data. WTC7 itself is the biggest smoking gun for this. You can't have a "progressive collapse" and accelerate at free-fall at the same time. Those columns were completely and totally destroyed before that building began free-falling into itself.

If those columns were so destroyed, why did the acceleration take a while to reach free fall? Anyway this whole paragraph can essentially be boiled down to 'There's no good evidence for individual bits but I'm so suspicious that the suggestion of evidence is enough to convince me'. I apologise if this is insulting, but this is my interpretation of that paragraph. Science is not done by aggregating suspicion, if you can't provide a unified theory (it doesn't have to fill every last detail, just any of the major details) then you can't claim to have a more reliable theory.


Yes, I'm aware of the outsourcing. They outsourced to the same people that investigated the 1993 bombing and Oklahoma City too if I recall correctly. Let's just put it this way: The Nazis never outsourced their propaganda work to the Americans, did they?

Haha impressive, Godwin's and FUD in the same paragraph. I guess you have realised that it's pretty hard to pay off every member of a private company and keep them quiet!


Now you're lying again. You know NIST never validated their hypothesis and recreated their alleged mechanism physically. That is un-accept-able. That is not science. You have NEVER explained why I am "wrong" about this because there is nothing to be wrong about it.

I know that NIST never validated their experiments to your satisfaction, but you've yet to even present the experiment they should have used, so I can't exactly fault them for that. They carried out normal experimental procedure, created models to simulate the towers and tested the accuracy of their models with real world tests. Whether you like it or not, this is a normal and acceptable procedure. If they had reproduced one of these tests in full scale I'm sure you'd then demand they demonstrate it on a multi truss wall section.


Again, all he was showing was how incompetent you "debunkers" are when you make up these off-the-cuff excuses with no scientific merit whatsoever.

In that case the video is especially ironic.


Oh and now the goalposts shift after I show you NIST themselves admitting they never looked.

For fun, lets see if you can find and post why NIST didn't test. They do explain it



Their pre-determined conclusion is self-obvious from the fact that they never investigated anything else, never had any interest in investigating anything else, and said as much themselves.

So if anyone investigating starts with the most likely theory according to available evidence, then that's proof they started with no intent to ever consider alternative theories? This is based both on a lack of understanding of how NIST developed their theory, and of logic in general.


And I remind you that you still haven't shown me where they ever tested their main hypothesis, the main point of their entire investigation. Because we both know they never did. And you, an "analyst," think this is science apparently.

Ironic is right. Actually more like depressing.

Depressing indeed, as you still have not managed to accept that calibration tests exist to calibrate models, not to try and demonstrate theories which probably had not even been fully developed by that point. Believing they already had their answers is circular logic, as they required these tests to produce the theory.


No, it's impossible for it to have melted from those fires alone.

Oh god, I was just trying to avoid the same argument again, someone save me.


This paper actually concludes that while the tiny iron spheres are there, and do indicate that there were tons of this material in the dust, and that they must have formed from being melted, it's less likely that they are part of some thermite reaction and more likely part of some unknown mechanism that nonetheless resulted in the melting and dispersal of tons of steel/iron.

Oh dear, so your theory that is apparently quite convincing apparently doesn't even have a basic mechanism. As far as I know (I am not confident in this) the most likely source of these iron microspheres is the concrete, which is partially composed of ash which contains these microspheres. That may have been debunked though, I have been out of touch for a while.

Right, reply over, time for a smoke and some sleep.



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Thermate may be more effective at cutting through steel, but that does not change the mechanism it uses, which is an extremely high temperature attack. Evidence of which was not found by FEMA or NIST. What is the lowest reaction temperature you can find for a thermate mix?


FEMA notes that the steel had only been exposed to about 1000 C, which they describe as significantly lower than what would be expected to melt that steel. The point is to destroy the steel before it is to achieve a high temperature. The steel was destroyed for any structural purpose.



Compared to the government reports it's a hell of a lot more convincing.

When you claim that a satirical theory is more convincing than years of research and experimentation then it is hard to take you seriously.


"Years of research and experimentation"? By who, again?..


If those columns were so destroyed, why did the acceleration take a while to reach free fall?


LaBTop just posted a thread with a theory on this actually. It's on the ATS home page at the moment, or here's a link:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Either way the free-fall acceleration period is equally damning, regardless of what was before and after it. It's the instantaneous values during that period that prove no work was being done during the same period, and therefore no "progressive collapse."


Anyway this whole paragraph can essentially be boiled down to 'There's no good evidence for individual bits but I'm so suspicious that the suggestion of evidence is enough to convince me'.


It's not just a "suggestion of evidence" when we can offer one theory, say, for explosions, that they were caused by some kind of explosive or bomb, and those explosions are immediately direct evidence for that, but then someone comes back with "it must have been something else causing those explosions" with no other credible alternative to offer. I've seen transformer excuses and people hitting the ground and the rest and they just don't add up when you look at all the evidence of explosions. Same with the violent ejections of debris during the collapses, WTC7's free-fall acceleration, all of those little things that are direct evidence of demolition and not direct evidence of any other possibility.


I apologise if this is insulting, but this is my interpretation of that paragraph.


No, actually I was thinking "oh, great..." when you said you'd been drinking, but I actually think your tone is more pleasant and reasonable in this post ironically enough. You've got me curious. Beer? Wine? Let's see, you're in the UK... New Castle?


Science is not done by aggregating suspicion, if you can't provide a unified theory (it doesn't have to fill every last detail, just any of the major details) then you can't claim to have a more reliable theory.


I explained above why in my view demolition theory does explain all these details much better than NIST's theory does. NIST ignores the explosions completely and only offers and off-the-cuff explanation of the explosive ejections, not acknowledging the solid dust and debris that came out with the air, and didn't offer any reconciliation at all for how WTC7 could have been doing work while simultaneously accelerating at free-fall.


Haha impressive, Godwin's and FUD in the same paragraph. I guess you have realised that it's pretty hard to pay off every member of a private company and keep them quiet!


The last emotion I feel towards all of this is fear, and it's a historical fact that the Nazis were able to do what they did very successfully on a very large scale despite their own public, and despite Godwin's musings. You know we actually brought over Nazi propagandists after WW2, and their rocket scientists too, and employed them. I only wish I were making this stuff up.


I know that NIST never validated their experiments to your satisfaction


Or at all, even.


but you've yet to even present the experiment they should have used


It was their theory, that the trusses sagged and pulled in the perimeter columns. If they were depending on me to come up with their experimental setup for them, then I must have missed their phone calls and letters.

Are you saying it would have been impossible to recreate NIST's hypothesis with a single truss and perimeter column section? Do you have a reason why this should be the case? If this is the case, then since each truss was independently connected to its respective perimeter section anyway, it would mean NIST's entire theory is impossible right off the bat.



Again, all he was showing was how incompetent you "debunkers" are when you make up these off-the-cuff excuses with no scientific merit whatsoever.

In that case the video is especially ironic.


I take that as a back-handed way of admitting the theory being tested wasn't even worth testing in the first place. I agree. Many JREF'ers probably wouldn't have, and still don't.



Oh and now the goalposts shift after I show you NIST themselves admitting they never looked.

For fun, lets see if you can find and post why NIST didn't test. They do explain it


Because a dog ate their homework?



Their pre-determined conclusion is self-obvious from the fact that they never investigated anything else, never had any interest in investigating anything else, and said as much themselves.

So if anyone investigating starts with the most likely theory according to available evidence, then that's proof they started with no intent to ever consider alternative theories?


No, the fact that they never did consider other possibilities is. Especially coupled with the fact that what they did pursue wasn't rigorously demonstrated by any stretch of the term.



And I remind you that you still haven't shown me where they ever tested their main hypothesis, the main point of their entire investigation. Because we both know they never did. And you, an "analyst," think this is science apparently.

Ironic is right. Actually more like depressing.

Depressing indeed, as you still have not managed to accept that calibration tests exist to calibrate models, not to try and demonstrate theories which probably had not even been fully developed by that point.


That's not an excuse for never testing them. Why didn't the trusses sag and pull the perimeter columns inward during their calibration? Doesn't that say something?


Believing they already had their answers is circular logic, as they required these tests to produce the theory.


As soon as they did this "calibration test" and realizing there was no pulling the perimeter columns inward when the truss became heated, I would imagine that's when they determined they would never embarrass themselves by trying to test their hypothesis. Nothing like creating a hypothesis only to test it and find it dead wrong.


Oh dear, so your theory that is apparently quite convincing apparently doesn't even have a basic mechanism.


The scope of the paper I referenced wasn't to determine the mechanism, only to analyze the dust and verify that what Jones was looking at was actually there and what he said it was.


As far as I know (I am not confident in this) the most likely source of these iron microspheres is the concrete, which is partially composed of ash which contains these microspheres. That may have been debunked though, I have been out of touch for a while.


That doesn't sound very much better than the paper you just criticized.

edit on 17-9-2010 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   
finaly a home brewer , thank god for human quoriosity

S+F for an exelent video



posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Good video. Although we have to bear in mind that steelframes were bearing quite a weight load, while this guy in the video is merely heating it in a hot trash pile. I am not sure if the conditions in this "experiment" can be juxtaposed with WTC.

Anyhow it kinda proves that the heat alone is not sufficient to get reaction going.

Furthermore, as pointed out above, the hypothesis to begin with is kinda ridicilous. Instead of inquiring what brought the buildings down, they started with hypothesis - committing research like that, it is quite easy to come up with some supporting evidence.

-v



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
FEMA notes that the steel had only been exposed to about 1000 C, which they describe as significantly lower than what would be expected to melt that steel. The point is to destroy the steel before it is to achieve a high temperature. The steel was destroyed for any structural purpose.

How would this work? You can't create molten metal at an interface between thermite and iron, and then somehow have that penetrate deeper into the steel without having it sit horizontally on a beam. Plus, how would you sufficiently insulate it? Just because thermate may be able to melt through steel at 1000C instead of 1500C doesn't mean that thermate itself only burns at 1000C. Reaction temperatures for thermite exceed 2000C.


"Years of research and experimentation"? By who, again?..

NIST, FEMA, the tens of engineering companies they used in the reports? I could make a big list of all public and private organisations that did research but you can't be serious if you're asking who did the research.


Either way the free-fall acceleration period is equally damning, regardless of what was before and after it. It's the instantaneous values during that period that prove no work was being done during the same period, and therefore no "progressive collapse."

How was a controlled demolition so accurately calibrated then?


It's not just a "suggestion of evidence" when we can offer one theory, say, for explosions, that they were caused by some kind of explosive or bomb, and those explosions are immediately direct evidence for that, but then someone comes back with "it must have been something else causing those explosions" with no other credible alternative to offer. I've seen transformer excuses and people hitting the ground and the rest and they just don't add up when you look at all the evidence of explosions. Same with the violent ejections of debris during the collapses, WTC7's free-fall acceleration, all of those little things that are direct evidence of demolition and not direct evidence of any other possibility.

Wait, so what you're saying is that there are no explanations for explosive sounds other than demolition explosives? That's what i'm getting from this statement. 'direct evidence' is evidence that cannot be explained by any other theory.


No, actually I was thinking "oh, great..." when you said you'd been drinking, but I actually think your tone is more pleasant and reasonable in this post ironically enough. You've got me curious. Beer? Wine? Let's see, you're in the UK... New Castle?

It's actually "Newcastle", but no. I was drinking Fuller's 1845 and some Leffe.


I explained above why in my view demolition theory does explain all these details much better than NIST's theory does. NIST ignores the explosions completely and only offers and off-the-cuff explanation of the explosive ejections, not acknowledging the solid dust and debris that came out with the air, and didn't offer any reconciliation at all for how WTC7 could have been doing work while simultaneously accelerating at free-fall.

If you really do think that some unspecified barely defined demolition theory is better. Explain these four things convincingly
1. The inward bowing of the walls of the WTC shortly before collapse
2. The east penthouse destruction 5-6 seconds before the onset of global collapse
3. The firefighters' analysis of WTC7 as a building in danger of collapse
4. The delay between WTC1,2 and 7's destruction.


The last emotion I feel towards all of this is fear, and it's a historical fact that the Nazis were able to do what they did very successfully on a very large scale despite their own public, and despite Godwin's musings. You know we actually brought over Nazi propagandists after WW2, and their rocket scientists too, and employed them. I only wish I were making this stuff up.

It's not that you feel fear, you're trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about the NIST report, instead of honestly criticising it. You know what experiments they conducted, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it without trying to add in an ulterior motive. You even go so far as to assign specific emotions to the researchers, despite you having no evidence and as far as I know having never met them:


As soon as they did this "calibration test" and realizing there was no pulling the perimeter columns inward when the truss became heated, I would imagine that's when they determined they would never embarrass themselves by trying to test their hypothesis. Nothing like creating a hypothesis only to test it and find it dead wrong.


That's paranoia, not fear.


Are you saying it would have been impossible to recreate NIST's hypothesis with a single truss and perimeter column section?

Nope


I take that as a back-handed way of admitting the theory being tested wasn't even worth testing in the first place. I agree. Many JREF'ers probably wouldn't have, and still don't.

It's not anything back-handed, I thought I was pretty explicit. Here, let me explain it for you. It's ironic because, if the experimenter was trying to expose others' incompetence, he actually exposed his own.


Because a dog ate their homework?

Disappointing.


That's not an excuse for never testing them. Why didn't the trusses sag and pull the perimeter columns inward during their calibration? Doesn't that say something?

They did.


That doesn't sound very much better than the paper you just criticized.

I am not a chemist or materials scientist. The criticisms of this paper are out there, coupled with the rather dubious choice of journal.

I have no clue what keeps pushing you to invent motivations and reasons for testing which never existed, and then to ignore and deny the tests that were actually done, but you are just wasting both of our time with this. Please, provide a convincing reason to think that NISTs calibration tests were anything but.





 
133
<< 14  15  16   >>

log in

join