Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Java Man]

and you know full well that the NIST analysis does not stop simply with examining the physical samples it had retrieved.

Exactly, it didn't stop there and went on creating data of its own. And that's the problem. It's ok to make a model that has temperatures over 250°, but then you have to go validate it against real world data. But ups!! Real world data was now part of the hull of a new ship.

Sorry, I see what you're getting to, but without any validation back to the remains it is seriously discredited. Even if it is a good model you still need backing data. Your model should say "there where pockets of 880°C here" (for example) then you'd go and look for pieces that belonged to those pockets and verify the model against it. You can't just assume it because the "sample was too small".

 

[uke2se]

Exactly, it didn't stop there and went on creating data of its own. And that's the problem. It's ok to make a model that has temperatures over 250°, but then you have to go validate it against real world data. But ups!! Real world data was now part of the hull of a new ship.

Sorry, I see what you're getting to, but without any validation back to the remains it is seriously discredited. Even if it is a good model you still need backing data. Your model should say "there where pockets of 880°C here" (for example) then you'd go and look for pieces that belonged to those pockets and verify the model against it. You can't just assume it because the "sample was too small".

:facepalm:

 

[BigAl]

Actually according to NIST seismic records ares so poor in quality they can't even help in determining the time it took the buildings to collapse.

Make stuff up much?mbSez who?

Cite please.

Now I've heard people here claim that the concrete floor slabs (110 of them per building) were blown to pieces and that accounts for the dust cloud. And that was done solely by the fall. That no explosives were needed, the huge energy of the fall was enough. And that didn't show up on seismic records?

No physics courses ever, I see.

 

[Java Man]

Who did you see making that claim? The dust was mostly things other than concrete, like crushed ceiling tiles.

TSR pretty much brought the topic up here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6177265&postcount=170 it was then heavily discussed.

 

[Java Man]

Make stuff up much?mbSez who?

Cite please.

// referring to the quality of the seismic readings

Here's the quote straight from NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

 

[Disbelief]

Well said. This is exactly what NIST was doing. It's sort of Rumsfeldian logic, "we know Sadam is hiding WMDs since we haven't found them yet."

Or truther logic, "We have no physical evidence of explosives, but the towers were brought down by CD."

 

[BigAl]

Show me an eutectic system with concrete. The point of a eutectic system here as far as I understand it is a means to lower the melting point of steel. But if steel is covered by concrete it's going to be very hard for the element making the eutectic system to reach the steel unless you take the cement away.

Thus the relevance of my questioning. Particularly since the videos we've been seeing about CDs are on reinforced concrete structures.

Make stuff up much?

That's a really big "if" and unless you can come up with a source, it's not true.

If WTC7 had masonry-covered steel, it probably wouldn't have collapsed. The WTC buildings that were masonry-covered steel survived 9/11. 90 West St. and 140 West St. would be examples.

 

[Disbelief]

So, you think this:

Here's the quote straight from NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

and this:

Actually according to NIST seismic records ares so poor in quality they can't even help in determining the time it took the buildings to collapse.

say the same thing?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Exactly, it didn't stop there and went on creating data of its own. And that's the problem. It's ok to make a model that has temperatures over 250°, but then you have to go validate it against real world data.

There's plenty of real world data on which to base all of their models. Some of which I mentioned already in the very post you quoted. Perhaps you need to review some common data:

Average building fire temperatures range from approximately 700º to 900º Celsius.

^Source
or

this?

Or

this?

Quite a bit more comprehensive info is available. I suggest you start looking so you can start detailing what NIST must have faked. Get to it now please. I'm sure if you have a case you can use this very information to comprehensively detail their errors well beyond a simple datamine you interpret as an incomplete study.

 

[Java Man]

So, you think this:



and this:



say the same thing?

No, the NIST quote even covers the videos, but I'm just concerned with the seismic records right now. Regarding that, yes they say the same thing.

 

[Java Man]

There's plenty of real world data on which to base all of their models. Some of which I mentioned already in the very post you quoted. Perhaps you need to review some common data:

Actually your post just has lots of text claiming things with no numeric data to back it up. I'm quite aware of the temperatures in average building fires. That goes to compound the issue further. If those are the average temperatures, why were no beams exposed to those temperatures found? You're making it worst for NIST.

 

[Disbelief]

No, the NIST quote even covers the videos, but I'm just concerned with the seismic records right now. Regarding that, yes they say the same thing.

Then this is just one more thing you are wrong about. The NIST quote says absolutely nothing about the quality of the seismic records, just that they are not reliable indicators. Maybe there is another reason that they are unreliable to determine the total collapse time.

 

[carlitos]

You're making it worst for NIST.

No, he's sparring with an intellectual lightweight on an obscure internet forum.

Why do truthers act like their tired, impotent charade is affecting the world in any way? Real building codes in real life are being revised and changed due to NIST and the analysis of these collapses. The incredulity of some knucklehead with an internet connection is accomplishing ____________?

 

[A W Smith]

A few Twoofers still pounding that square peg into a round hole

yes i do. When things like this happen news agencies look into any claims made by the "nut case" to see if they have any validity. After all, if what this "nut case" claims was actually true it would be the biggest news story in the world.

Now you can dismiss this by saying that the world media is "in on it" or "controlled" but frankly i have never seen any evidence that this could possibly be true, there's way too many of them with too many agendas.

well i don't know what world you live in, but from what i've observed, when things like that happen, news agencies have a field day working as many laffs out of the story as they possibly can.

The last thing they will do is say; "omg, 9/11 was maybe an inside job? Get our best people investigating that right away!"

sorry dgm but your belief is just too funny.

Mm

ctbuh

the council does not agree with the nist statement that the failure was a
result of the buckling of column 79. we believe that the failure was a result of
the collapse of the floor structure that led to loss of lateral restraint and
subsequent buckling of internal columns.
the council would like to make it clear that it sees no credibility whatsoever in
the 911 ‘truth movement’ and we believe, with the vast majority of tall building
professionals, that all the failures at the wtc (wtc 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7) were a
direct or indirect result of the planes that were flown into the two towers. We
have carefully looked at the evidence that the 911 ‘truth movement’ presents
and we cannot see any credible scientific evidence of a controlled demolition
on wtc 7 or any of the other wtc buildings. The council considers that the
‘truth movement’ is a distraction and should not obfuscate the performance
issues which should be at the center of the debate about how best to continue
to improve and develop fire and life safety in tall buildings.

 

[Java Man]

The NIST quote says absolutely nothing about the quality of the seismic records, just that they are not reliable indicators.

That IS saying something about the quality of the seismic records. But I'll go along your line of reasoning which is even better. You're claiming that the seismic records are "not reliable indicators", thus as unreliable indicators they can not be used to disprove the usage of explosives. Like you say, they're unreliable.

 

[Java Man]

No, he's sparring with an intellectual lightweight on an obscure internet forum.

I think you're wrong, I haven't seen him directly addressing you at any point along this thread. Maybe I missed it, if so just point me to his discussion with you.

 

[excaza]

Here's the quote straight from NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the seismic record to detect explosions, so why are you using it as such?

 

[TheRedWorm]

I've asked this before, and no truther has given a coherent answer:

It's been nearly a decade since the attack, and nearly 5 years since the height of the truth movement; what do you hope to accomplish by posting here?

 

[Disbelief]

That IS saying something about the quality of the seismic records. But I'll go along your line of reasoning which is even better. You're claiming that the seismic records are "not reliable indicators", thus as unreliable indicators they can not be used to disprove the usage of explosives. Like you say, they're unreliable.

Wrong again. Read the quote closely and see how it talks about the duration of the collapse, nothing about a specific event - say a large spike from the use of explosives. It can be very reliable for that, though there is not enough information in your quote to prove that.

After all this time, you are still not very good at this.

 

[Java Man]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the seismic record to detect explosions, so why are you using it as such?

Oh so you're implying that shock waves from explosions don't travel through the ground? So the US was never able to detect USSR nukes going off underground?