ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags eutectic reaction , thermate

Reply
Old 16th July 2010, 08:08 AM   #1
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF...layer_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?

I don't think it's perfect, but I think this is a very helpful experiment. As Cole points out, whereas there may be sources for sulfur in the building materials, how did it enter the intergranular structure? And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

If this video and experiment is not the type of sincere research that can be done by independent scientists, I'd like to know what is. Besides there are shoutouts to Jones, Greening and Mackey. Enjoy.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 08:22 AM   #2
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
What role would sulfidation, or sulfur at all, play in the weakening of the steel and collapse of the buildings?

Kind of like asking them why they didn't test for pixie dust.

You approach it with the preconceived notion that explosives were used, thermite in particular, and then work backwards...because that is the truther way. I have as much evidence that pixies were behind 9/11 (that being NO evidence) so why not check for pixie dust?

I know I am being extreme here, but you get my drift?

THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE of thermite, so why would sulfur be important to collapse INITIATION?

If it is not important, from a rational, SANE, pov, then why should NIST have conducted such experiments?

TAM

Edit: I am sure if he has nothing better to do, Mackey or someone else can actually address the ezperiment, and the errors in truther logic that I AM SURE exist within.

Last edited by T.A.M.; 16th July 2010 at 08:23 AM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 08:26 AM   #3
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF...layer_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?

I don't think it's perfect, but I think this is a very helpful experiment. As Cole points out, whereas there may be sources for sulfur in the building materials, how did it enter the intergranular structure? And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?

If this video and experiment is not the type of sincere research that can be done by independent scientists, I'd like to know what is. Besides there are shoutouts to Jones, Greening and Mackey. Enjoy.
It starts out with a huge fallacy about key Enron documents "being lost" (poisoning the well much) and then switches immediately to the truther cropped video of the collapse, and straight down at near "free fall."

At which point I clicked it off.

I am sure it is vitally important, Red. Please let us know when someone other than a few conspiracy nutballs on the internet take note of it.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 08:27 AM   #4
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
How about this, Red; next time you post something to debunk, make it your hypothesis on what brought the towers down.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 09:10 AM   #5
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF...layer_embedded

So what's wrong with the experiment? What's it's weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not?
.
Since the experimenter has thermate as a hypothesis, his first and essential and obvious experiment would be to get or make some thermate and apply it to the beam and see if the results look anything like the recovered sample.

Until this experiment is done, every other experiment is pointless.

As for this test, IMO (and my unused university chemistry) tells me the video fails because it didn't burn for weeks at high humidity but I'll wait for someone more knowledgeable to chime in.
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.

Last edited by BigAl; 16th July 2010 at 09:37 AM.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 12:49 PM   #6
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?
Because the eutectic reactions didn't occur until after the collapses.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 05:00 PM   #7
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 884
And because FEMA did it.

Biederman/Sisson
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 05:16 PM   #8
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,681
Why is it always "debunk this" (to any crap anyone wants to string together) instead of the "youtube scientist" doing the work and actually proving the "theory"?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 05:23 PM   #9
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Meh. The entire first half of the video does nothing but poison the well and prime the audience to accept a half-assed experiment as proof of a conclusion that's already been made.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 06:40 PM   #10
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Can someone who understands this explain what was wrong with the experiment THIS time?

Click here to skip to it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw#t=4m46s

Last edited by Edx; 16th July 2010 at 06:41 PM.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2010, 07:23 PM   #11
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
That's pretty retarded stuff red.
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 03:53 AM   #12
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Dr. Greening responds

Quote:
I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it .....

However, the one thing I would suggest that still makes "natural" sulfidation of steel a real possibility is the inclusion of chlorine in the experiment. Chlorine species would have been present in the WTC fires from the thermal degradation of the very common plastic PVC which is used in many office building items such as flooring tiles, electrical insulation, TV and computer housings, window blinds, plumbing fixtures, etc, etc.

The combustion of PVC releases copious amounts of the very corrosive gas HCl which attacks even stainless steel. HCl and Cl2, alone or in combination, are also known to have a catalytic effect on high temperature steel corrosion that would leave affected areas of steel very vulnurable to subsequent sulfide attack. The type of accelerated corrosion I am referring to has been observed in the gaseous effluent streams of industrial and municipal waste incinerators. So regrettably, before anyone claims victory on this question, I would say that the experiment needs to be repeated with PVC thrown into the mix.
Much more here.
metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 04:09 AM   #13
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,836
First of all, it's a YouTube video. If the authors want to be taken seriously, they should write a paper, and explain their methodology in detail, including the reason why specific aspects of the experiment were chosen to be what they were.

4:36 -"So how can we tell who is not correct?"

This is the specific point at which everything goes off the rails. The video proposes two explanations, one of which is a fully realised hypothesis involving known processes and materials, and the other of which is a vague suggestion with no proposed mechanism or specific sequence of events. With the statement above, it deliberately implies that one of these explanations must be correct, therefore all that's required is the elimination of the other. It's a classic case of the false dilemma fallacy.

5:27 "...aluminum scraps, some from an airplane..."

Cute. A piece of utterly irrelevant information to give the impression that the materials have been carefully chosen.

The temperature wasn't measured beyond the observation that it melted aluminium, but the observation that the steel was glowing red suggests that the temperature was never high enough to reach the melting point of an iron-sulphur eutectic or produce significant decomposition of the gypsum. The duration was about two days, and no particular effort was made to reproduce the exact composition of the WTC7 rubble pile beyond vague guesswork. The conditions of the fire - a well-ventilated, fast-burning, open fire - were nothing like the slow-burning, diffusion-limited and well-insulated fire in the rubble pile. As an attempt to reproduce the conditions seen by the corroded beam, this was more or less worthless.

However, something useful might have been done if the steel beam had been chemically analysed to see whether any sulphur was present in the surface. Some form of chemical analysis might produce some useful information. Simply looking at the steel, observing that there weren't any holes in it, and noting that for the most part it was still sound, is a pathetic mockery of serious analysis. To conclude from this cursory inspection that "The aluminum, concrete, drywall, diesel fuel and building materials did not cause any intergranular melting" (7:26) is utterly unwarranted. Truthers are, as usual, avoiding seeing anything they don't want to by not bothering to look for it properly.

From there, the video degenerates into outright lying. I note with interest at 8:30 that the narrative says "There is a reason why NIST ignored all their advice..." while the text on screen simply begins "NIST ignored all their advice..." - classic poisoning the well, while pretending innocence. And the same at 8:40 - "Perhaps NIST knew that..." is missing from the text.

Nice one at 8:50, where the glowing material coming from WTC2 is (a) identified as molten steel despite the fact that it's not hot enough to be molten steel, and (b) described as coming out of "the tower" to give the deliberate false impression that it came from WTC7, the only tower that's been discussed in the video so far. I see the iron-rich spheroids are now "iron spheroids", and it's suggested that thermite reactions can go on for days.

Oh, and RedIbis, since you're now claiming that you always admitted there was such a thing as thermal expansion and that it happens in all building fires, would you like to join me in pointing out that "a new phenomenon called thermal expansion due to an office fire" is an extraordinarily ignorant description, and quite simply wrong?

And at 9:28, the biggest lie of all: "The murder of thousands on 9/11 wasn't considered a crime, and therefore [was] never investigated as a crime". You heard it here first, folks; Operation PENTTBOM, the largest operation in the history of the FBI, never happened.

Last of all, as others have pointed out, the missing part of the video is the part where anyone demonstrates that thermate can cause erosion and thinning of steel structural members by intergranular eutectic melting. Until someone's demonstrated this, there isn't even a competing hypothesis.

Truther videos make me sick. This laughably incompetent piece of cargo cult science is no exception.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 05:22 AM   #14
switchpoint
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 142
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF...layer_embedded

And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?
As far as I know, the NIST doesn't have a big backyard and backhoe. They are limited to things like labaratories and the scientific method.
switchpoint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 06:22 AM   #15
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,836
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?
It's relatively easy to carry out a poorly-constructed experiment that bears very little resemblance to the conditions it's supposed to be modelling and is virtually guaranteed to give no useful results at all because no attempt is made at analysing the final state of the system. What isn't so easy is conducting experiments that give useful and rigorous conclusions, but the truth movement has yet to find this out because they haven't tried it.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 06:34 AM   #16
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
An office fire or a smoldering debris pile fire do not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Sample #1, from WTC 7 was melted by:
"A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur [molten iron] formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000C (1,800F) which is substantially lower than would be expected foe melting this steel .
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F but only for a short time. Not anywhere near long enough to melt steel as has been demonstrated in many fires. Debris pile fires burn at much lower temperatures.


Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 06:36 AM   #17
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
/facepalm
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 06:43 AM   #18
NutCracker
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 654
Delete

Last edited by NutCracker; 17th July 2010 at 06:45 AM.
NutCracker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 06:46 AM   #19
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
An office fire or a smoldering debris pile fire do not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Sample #1, from WTC 7 was melted by:
"A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur [molten iron] formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000C (1,800F) which is substantially lower than would be expected foe melting this steel .
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F but only for a short time. Not anywhere near long enough to melt steel as has been demonstrated in many fires. Debris pile fires burn at much lower temperatures.


Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
Maximum of 2,000 degrees? How about car fires? You do know that there were cars in the pile right?

Also, this "office fire" that you suggest can only burn for a "short time", please tell me more about this office? Is it just one office, or is it 110 floors of offices, kitchens, maintenence floors, huge HVAC systems, massive electrical substations, etc etc etc. X's 2?

Show me where thermite can burn for days. I can show you one reason the pile burned for days.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefightin...chnology_cuts/

In fact, they even invented a tool for firefighters to help in a simmilar situation.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 06:50 AM   #20
switchpoint
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 142
Quote:
Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F
Thats one I always love to hear - "office fires".

Do "doctor's" office fires burn at different temperature than say, "lawyer's" office fires? Also, generally speaking, can the smoke plume from "office" fires be seen clearly from the space station?

Just asking questions.
switchpoint is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 07:10 AM   #21
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 24,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F but only for a short time. Not anywhere near long enough to melt steel as has been demonstrated in many fires. Debris pile fires burn at much lower temperatures.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
What was witnessed was not "melting" in the normal sense of a mass phase change from solid to liquid. You've had this presented to you dozens of times, Christopher7, and in great depth. Why are you repeating the same worn-out claptrap?
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 07:19 AM   #22
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
There is some really ridiculous truthers on the comment section, just check it out.

I cant argue on such a such a difficult to use comment section anymore.
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 07:40 AM   #23
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,681
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Maximum of 2,000 degrees? How about car fires? You do know that there were cars in the pile right?

Also, this "office fire" that you suggest can only burn for a "short time", please tell me more about this office? Is it just one office, or is it 110 floors of offices, kitchens, maintenence floors, huge HVAC systems, massive electrical substations, etc etc etc. X's 2?

Show me where thermite can burn for days. I can show you one reason the pile burned for days.
http://firechief.com/mag/firefightin...chnology_cuts/

In fact, they even invented a tool for firefighters to help in a simmilar situation.
You might want to search christopher7 post history before you spend much time responding to him.

Just saying.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 07:49 AM   #24
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Christopher thinks the WTC had a concrete core lol
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 07:51 AM   #25
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It's relatively easy to carry out a poorly-constructed experiment that bears very little resemblance to the conditions it's supposed to be modelling and is virtually guaranteed to give no useful results at all because no attempt is made at analysing the final state of the system. What isn't so easy is conducting experiments that give useful and rigorous conclusions, but the truth movement has yet to find this out because they haven't tried it.

Dave
You didn't watch the video, did you? No one said the experiment was perfect, but debunkers are always whining why Twoofies don't do their own experiments. Now you can be specific if you'd like. Here's a productive discussion of the experiment on your favorite forum.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/su...nist-t391.html

ETA: I didn't see some of the earlier posts and Metamars' link.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

Last edited by RedIbis; 17th July 2010 at 07:57 AM.
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 07:55 AM   #26
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,681
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
You didn't watch the video, did you? No one said the experiment was perfect, but debunkers are always whining why Twoofies don't do their own experiments. Now you can be specific if you'd like. Here's a productive discussion of the experiment on your favorite forum.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/su...nist-t391.html
You didn't read his post before that where he discussed the video with time stamps?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 08:02 AM   #27
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

Oh, and RedIbis, since you're now claiming that you always admitted there was such a thing as thermal expansion and that it happens in all building fires, would you like to join me in pointing out that "a new phenomenon called thermal expansion due to an office fire" is an extraordinarily ignorant description, and quite simply wrong?
Maybe Cole was referring to Sunder, who said, scientists "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

Are you calling Sunder's similar comment, "extraordinarily ignorant"?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 08:09 AM   #28
Quad4_72
AI-EE-YAH!
 
Quad4_72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,354
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
An office fire or a smoldering debris pile fire do not burn hot enough to melt steel.
Sample #1, from WTC 7 was melted by:
"A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur [molten iron] formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000C (1,800F) which is substantially lower than would be expected foe melting this steel .
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

Office fires can burn at a maximum of 1,800 - 2,000 Degrees F but only for a short time. Not anywhere near long enough to melt steel as has been demonstrated in many fires. Debris pile fires burn at much lower temperatures.


Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
You didn't think that post through did you?
__________________
Looks like the one on top has a magazine, thus needs less reloading. Also, the muzzle shroud makes it less likely for a spree killer to burn his hands. The pistol grip makes it more comfortable for the spree killer to shoot. thaiboxerken
Quad4_72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 08:26 AM   #29
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
No one said the experiment was perfect [...]

The interesting thing about your weak attempt at deflecting criticism is that "not perfect" encompasses everything from "steaming pile of ****" to "off by a few hundredths on a single value".

Dave simply pointed out that the "experiment" in your video falls on the very low end of the "not perfect" scale.

What value do you see in it?

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 17th July 2010 at 08:30 AM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 08:35 AM   #30
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
The interesting thing about your weak attempt at deflecting criticism is that "not perfect" encompasses everything from "steaming pile of ****" to "off by a few hundredths on a single value".

Dave simply pointed out that the "experiment" in your video falls on the very low end of the "not perfect" scale.

What value do you see in it?
You'd think he'd be embarrassed by posting such garbage.

Hey Red, why don't you find a video that is not filled with lies?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 08:58 AM   #31
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Maybe Cole was referring to Sunder, who said, scientists "identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse."

Are you calling Sunder's similar comment, "extraordinarily ignorant"?
Cherrypick much?
__________________
------
Eric Pode of Croydon
Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief,
Dept of Redundancy Dept.
BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 09:35 AM   #32
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn't NIST do any for their final report?
Why was this NIST's responsibility? What does it have to do with the collapse? Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?

I love the twoofer fallacy that NIST investigates crimes instead of investigating collapses and failures to recommend changes to prevent them from happening in the future.
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 09:48 AM   #33
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?
Yes.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 09:49 AM   #34
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Yes.
Source?
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 09:49 AM   #35
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
Has anybody positiviely confirmed that this reaction occured pre-collapse?
Edit.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 09:50 AM   #36
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by lapman View Post
Source?
That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 09:54 AM   #37
lapman
Graduate Poster
 
lapman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,717
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.
No problem.

ETA, What is the answer to my question?
__________________
They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz
lapman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 10:22 AM   #38
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Maximum of 2,000 degrees? How about car fires? You do know that there were cars in the pile right?

Also, this "office fire" that you suggest can only burn for a "short time", please tell me more about this office? Is it just one office, or is it 110 floors of offices, kitchens, maintenence floors, huge HVAC systems, massive electrical substations, etc etc etc. X's 2?
I 'm talking about the melted beam from WTC 7.
NCSTAR 1A Pg 47 [pdf pg 89]
Fires . . . . on Floors 11 to 13 persisted in any given location for approximately 20 min to 30 min.

Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 10:33 AM   #39
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
What was witnessed was not "melting" in the normal sense of a mass phase change from solid to liquid.
It was a limited change from a solid to a liquid. You can play with semantics all you like but office fires or debris pile fires do not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt steel.
Christopher7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2010, 11:20 AM   #40
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thermate is the only known explanation for the melted beam.
Only in Twooferland! How is the weather there today?
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.