Metatheory and the NIST report

[Par]

Thanks for admitting your views are unfalsifiable.

Oops. You don’t know what that means then.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Don't ever dare to refer to America-hating frauds and liars as "patriots." The < FACT > that America was the victim of an unprovoked attack brought this deranged and evil movement into existence and caused it to stand reality upside down to absolve the jihadists of wrongdoing.

If Dr. Greening ever said that the liars had something, I'd question his sanity.

Many truthers are patriots. Pretty daring huh!

 

[Revolutionary91]

Why are the jihadists so proud of their victory?
.

Terrorists tend to like things like 911 attributed to them.

 

[pomeroo]

Many truthers are patriots. Pretty daring huh!

Not daring at all--just stupid and dishonest.

All conspiracy liars are irrational America-haters.

 

[GlennB]

"It is also possible that the phenomenon [of high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel] started prior to collaspe and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."(C-13).

I stand corrected. They do indeed state it might have started prior to collapse.

So far, no thorough explanation exists for the eutectic reaction for which we clearly have evidence. But you don't even feel inclined to look further for an explanation. That's just not a very scientific approach.

Your original point in quoting that study was to use it as evidence of molten steel. That was wrong. The study contradicts your point of view.

I can't recall your retraction of the claim. Maybe I missed it. It's been a long thread.

 

[pomeroo]

Terrorists tend to like things like 911 attributed to them.

Pathetic. It's time to throw in the towel. Your evil movement is nearly dead.

 

[Revolutionary91]

If its dead why are you so keen to make tv shows refuting it?

 

[pomeroo]

If its dead why are you so keen to make tv shows refuting it?

I want to expose the frauds, charlatans, and ignoramuses who treat the deaths of three thousand civilians as a monstrous game. I want the public to understand that behind the stupidity and irrationality of the fantasy movement there is evil, pure and simple.

 

[jay howard]

Since the two pieces of steel (of uncertain provenance) were saved because they were unusual, ...

Where are you ascertaining that these pieces of steel were saved because they were unusual? Is that a fact or an assumption?

...and because eutectic formations were not noted in steel known to have come from the tower fire areas, and buildings with similar fires, such as WTC 5, aren't known to produce such effects, and the duration of the tower fires was short but the duration of the fires in the piles was long, I believe mine is a reasonable assumption. I could be wrong. As I said, it's worth more study.

It may be a reasonable assumption, but it doesn't mean there aren't other reasonable assumptions as well. FEMA makes this point where they say

"The rate of corrosion is also unknown."(C-13)

Meaning, it could have taken a longer time or it could have taken a shorter time. Meaning, they take no definitive stance either way on this issue. Meaning at this point, it is equally reasonable to assume the reactions occurred in the rubble pile or prior to the collapse.

But I'm relieved to hear you support further inquiry into this.

False. Another reason could be that, based on all the evidence, not just that which you choose to cherry-pick, there is no reason to believe that the eroded steel resulted from the tower fires.

Why do you keep advocating positions that are on equal ground with their alternatives? You have no basis to do so unless you have access to information beyond FEMA appendix C or the WPI work. I know you're an intelligent person, but unless you are approaching this with something other than a scientific process, you must understand that you have no reason to believe that the steel did not undergo the high temperature corrosion prior to the collapse. That possibility, at this point, cannot be ruled out.

You assume that NIST did not consider the two samples of steel in question. Have you spoken to anyone at NIST to see if they did?

Edit: I have emailed Frank Gayle with some questions about this. I'll let you know if he replies.

There is nothing in their report that I have seen, (and I certainly may have just missed it) that so much as mentions this steel or the ferrous microspheres discovered by the USGS.

If they did find it, their statement that "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600ºC for as long as 15 min" would be false--or at least strangely misleading.

I'm all ears on Frank Gayle's response.

As for me "wanting" the eutectic reactions to have happened in the piles, why in the world would it bother me if they didn't?

I'm not sure, unless you were motivated to dismiss the steel as a cause of the collapse. Are you motivated to dismiss the steel as a cause of the collapse?

 

[jay howard]

I stand corrected. They do indeed state it might have started prior to collapse.

Fair enough.

Your original point in quoting that study was to use it as evidence of molten steel. That was wrong. The study contradicts your point of view.

I can't recall your retraction of the claim. Maybe I missed it. It's been a long thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you want me to admit there was no "melted steel"--only "high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel."

If that's a fair characterization of your position, it seems somewhat secondary to the fact that steel girders were turned into "swiss cheese" by the reactions to which we both refer. The steel in question was "liquefied" either way. Can you agree to that term?

I understand that the eutectic reactions lowered the melting point of the steel. That does not mean the steel didn't melt, or was liquefied. Agreed?

 

[GlennB]

Meaning, it could have taken a longer time or it could have taken a shorter time. Meaning, they take no definitive stance either way on this issue. Meaning at this point, it is equally reasonable to assume the reactions occurred in the rubble pile or prior to the collapse.

My bolding.

No it isn't.
The remains spent much longer in the rubble pile than in the burning building. In addition, sources of available reactive sulphur were more prevalent in the rubble pile.
Your arguments are pure sophistry.
You've come to the wrong place to try this stuff.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Not daring at all--just stupid and dishonest.

All conspiracy liars are irrational America-haters.

No they're not. Yes they are. No they're not. I know you are but what am I.

I thought I'd help you out a little.

 

[beachnut]

Terrorists tend to like things like 911 attributed to them.

Wow, throat cutting,g murdering idiots who flew planes into buildings. Wow, the accomplishment of idiots who can not fight tomorrow. Good job terrorist. The terrorist are losers, if you know the rules you can beat them 1000 times to 1. Like truthers, terrorists are not the smartest people around.

 

[GlennB]

Fair enough.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you want me to admit there was no "melted steel"--only "high temperature corrosion and sulfidation of steel."

If that's a fair characterization of your position, it seems somewhat secondary to the fact that steel girders were turned into "swiss cheese" by the reactions to which we both refer. The steel in question was "liquefied" either way. Can you agree to that term?

I understand that the eutectic reactions lowered the melting point of the steel. That does not mean the steel didn't melt, or was liquefied. Agreed?

More sophistry.

Intergranular corrosion from the eutectic mix is not equivalent, in any way, to melting.

I'd like you to face the fact that the steel didn't melt, that the study you quoted states clearly the temperatures experienced were nothing like hot enough to melt steel, and just be adult and admit you were wrong. It doesn't hurt.

 

[pomeroo]

No they're not. Yes they are. No they're not. I know you are but what am I.

I thought I'd help you out a little.

Sorry, you have to know something to be able to help.

 

[jay howard]

My bolding.

No it isn't.
The remains spent much longer in the rubble pile than in the burning building.

True, but that would only necessitate a more likely scenario if we knew the rate of corrosion--namely a slower one relative to the collapses. However, as the FEMA report unambiguously points out,

"The rate of corrosion is also unknown."

Without this knowledge, it is no more reasonable to assume the reaction occurred in the pile as it is to assume it happened prior to the collapse. Unless, that is, you have access to some knowledge that neither we here nor the FEMA team has. Do you?

In addition, sources of available reactive sulphur were more prevalent in the rubble pile.

Really? What counts as "reactive sulfur" and why weren't the FEMA scientists aware of this?

"No clear source of the sulfur has been identified."(C-13)

Did they forget to look in the rubble pile for "reactive sulfur"?

Your arguments are pure sophistry.
You've come to the wrong place to try this stuff.

Why is it I have to keep clarifying what the reports do and do not say to you? Are you unable or unwilling to read and comprehend the reports? And you accuse me of sophistry?

 

[jay howard]

More sophistry.

Intergranular corrosion from the eutectic mix is not equivalent, in any way, to melting.

I'd like you to face the fact that the steel didn't melt, that the study you quoted states clearly the temperatures experienced were nothing like hot enough to melt steel, and just be adult and admit you were wrong. It doesn't hurt.

The steel in question did or did not liquefy?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Why do you keep advocating positions that are on equal ground with their alternatives?

Funny, I was about to ask you this exact question.

Some other questions that I'm interested in:
1) Could the towers have collapsed without the eutectic reaction, i.e., just from the aircraft impacts and resulting fires?
2) Could the eutectic reaction have occurred after the collapse?
3) Could the eutectic reaction have occurred before the collapse and been the result of some explainable phenomena, e.g., heat sources derived from chemical reactions between the decomposition of office combustibles and exposed metal surfaces?
4) Is there any evidence that the eutectic reaction were caused by any substance introduced to the towers for the specific reason of causing damage to the towers (e.g., explosives, incendiaries)?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

If you were inspecting a death, and it appears to have a natural cause, but you find evidence of poison--even if it's just a little bit, wouldn't you be inclined to test a "poisoning theory"? The existence of a little poison does not necessitate murder, but it does necessitate a good explanation.

However, one would also have to consider whether the "evidence" of poison might also be explained by chemicals created when body tissue decomposes.

 

[GlennB]

Why is it I have to keep clarifying what the reports do and do not say to you? Are you unable or unwilling to read and comprehend the reports? And you accuse me of sophistry?

This is delicious.

You hadn't bothered even to read the report before quoting it as evidence for molten steel, now you "have to keep clarifying what they do and do not say"

For (roughly) the sixth time - it clearly states the temperatures were insufficient to melt steel.

Do you agree?