• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Miragememories said:
You spoke out of context.

My reference was specifically about their exaggerated claims about the intensity of the WTC7 fires.

MM
Click to expand...
The WTC7 fires were big. If you were in NYC on 911 you would know.

Experts on the eutectic.
Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940 °C were experienced in localized regions. Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed.
Click to expand...

From someone who was there on 911, in NYC.
There was rubble 20 stories high. It’s a sight I can’t even explain. It was a complete disaster. I was in total shock. That’s when I saw WTC7 on fire. I didn’t even notice it at first. There was hot dust and debris raining down, thick smoke billowing overhead. Building 7 wasn’t even a blip on my radar. But then I noticed it. It was on fire like the towering inferno. I mean flames were everywhere. I thought there were flames coming out on all floors, but I guess that’s because of all of the smoke. I kept looking at the building. It had so much debris up against it, and I mean big huge chucks of debris. Without you actually being there, you just can’t get the enormous scale of the disaster. The twisted steel and chunks of concrete were just so huge that my mind couldn’t comprehend it. And these were piled up against the building and sticking out of it at some levels. I can’t stress enough how enormous these beams and debris were. All of the pictures show the pile, but without actually seeing it, it is truly indescribable. WTC7 had granite of marble façade and there were HUGE cracks going up and down the façade too.

Anyway, I was looking at WTC7 and I noticed that it wasn’t looking like it was straight. It was really weird. The closest corner to me (the SE corner) was kind of out of whack with the SW corner. It was impossible to tell whether that corner (the SW) was leaning over more or even if it was leaning the other way. With all of the smoke and the debris pile, I couldn’t exactly tell what was going on, but I sure could see the building was leaning over in a way it certainly should not be.
Click to expand...

How does the eutectic play in your theory of 911? Since you and all 911 truth believe buildings never fail in fire, will you be staying in the next building that catches fire because it can't fail in your delusional fantasy world? Don't forget to work the eutectic into your claims, and explain.
 
Last edited:
Disbelief said:
I understand how seismic sensors work, you just lack basic reading comprehension. Please explain to me how seismic sensors would be able to be used to calculate the duration of the collapse. Now, explain to me why these same seismeic sensors did NOT detect explosives if they were used on WTC7.
Click to expand...

Good luck with this. Twoofies are the best at not being able to explain, that which destroys their "argument"!
 
Christopher7 said:
You contact and ask if you want to. :D

I have read all the articles and the "forensic" search was for human remains.

Show the quote where it says some qualified persons tested for explosives or cut the tap dance around the FACT that no one did. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So, you won't contact ProTec to find out what they know, because.....

(I already know the answer, and it's because you are afraid you will get your cheeks handed to you with facts)


http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

Now, what were you saying?
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you are confused.....what steel, other than the corrugated steel used to support the concrete floors, had concrete on it?
 
Java Man said:
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.

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? So if there is enough energy in the fall to do what explosives could do, thus eliminating the need for explosives to account for that destruction, what hope is there for the seismographs to pick up on the explosions if they couldn't pick up on the floor's destructions?
Click to expand...

Um, they did. The picked up the vibrations at the beginning of the collapse.

There was no evidence of an explosive on 9/11
http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf
 
Christopher7 said:
I have read all the articles and the "forensic" search was for human remains.
Click to expand...

...
A system developed to sift through the piles to retrieve human remains, personal objects, and evidence related to the terrorist attacks.
...
the debris went onto a conveyor belt where New York City police and firefighters and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched for human remains, personal objects, and criminal evidence. Work could only be done in 45-minute shifts or the strain from watching the constantly moving material might result in vertigo.
...
A number of American flags, torn and battered, were found among the debris. Even small objects, such as souvenirs from the shops located at the World Trade Center, were recovered

source

Evidence Recovery
aircraft fragments, architectural remnants, weapons, and everyday objects​


4,257 human remains, that have resulted in the identification of over 300 individuals
to date.
Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency (eta: they even counted it)
54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses​



edit: Christopher7, your posts are such a superficial pile of plain lies, wishful thinking and general wankage I'm amazed more people don't lose their temper with you.
Why do you even bother?​
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
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?
Click to expand...

How did you manage to get that from what I said?
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
No I don't think your evidence is important. Because your evidence is based on an illiteracy in reading the report you're referencing.


As for your first quote, unfortunately I haven't the experience in chemistry to speak about the technical details on the "vaporization." But as a laymen it does not sound like a behavior to expect from a thermite reaction which physically liquefies the steel rather than simply erodes it. Anybody with relevant experience is free to link to something that could help answer this better
Click to expand...

and what "illiteracy in reading" are you talking about?
 
It means exactly what it says. You do not understand the report sufficiently for me to take any of the evidence you've been citing to me seriously. The detail you continue claiming "proves" your argument about the NIST is instead one of many details that need to be read. All of which render your data mining moot.
 
Last edited:
You contact and ask if you want to. :biggrin:

I have read all the articles and the "forensic" search was for human remains.

Show the quote where it says some qualified persons tested for explosives or cut the tap dance around the FACT that no one did. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
triforcharity said:
So, you won't contact ProTec to find out what they know, because.....

(I already know the answer, and it's because you are afraid you will get your cheeks handed to you with facts)

http://www.jod911.com/WTC COLLAPSE STUDY BBlanchard 8-8-06.pdf

Now, what were you saying?
Click to expand...
I have read this article too.

No one tested for explosives.
 
Christopher7 said:
I have read this article too.

No one tested for explosives.
Click to expand...

Uh, earlier you said "I have read all the articles and the "forensic" search was for human remains. ", then in post #1800 I showed you to be wrong.

All you have done here is shift the goalposts from

the "forensic" search was for human remains
to
No one tested for explosives

Shoddy work, C7.
 
Christopher7 said:
False

Provide source when making a claim please.

[FONT=&quot]NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/FONT]
Click to expand...
NIST? NIST has dogs that find explosives?

Did you do tests? What did the FBI do? Did the FDNY check for explosives? Would you?

The proof is, no explosives found, no evidence of explosives found, no thermite found, no evidence of thermite was found. Why? Because CD is a delusion of yourself and 911 truth; only true in your minds; not in reality.
 
beachnut said:
NIST? NIST has dogs that find explosives?

Did you do tests? What did the FBI do? Did the FDNY check for explosives? Would you?

The proof is, no explosives found, no evidence of explosives found, no thermite found, no evidence of thermite was found. Why? Because CD is a delusion of yourself and 911 truth; only true in your minds; not in reality.
Click to expand...

Predicted answer from C7:

lalalala.gif
 
beachnut said:
"The WTC7 fires were big. If you were in NYC on 911 you would know."
Click to expand...

And here I thought you only wanted to talk about eutectic reactions?

Good, since WTC7 is the real smoking gun of 9/11 anyway.

So back to those big WTC7 fires; how do you reconcile Dr. Greening's disagreement about their intensity with the only theory which you support, that which the NIST presented?

I look forward to your reply beachnut since you've made it abundantly clear that you only traffic in solid evidence.

MM
 
GlennB said:
...
A system developed to sift through the piles to retrieve human remains, personal objects, and evidence related to the terrorist attacks.
...
the debris went onto a conveyor belt where New York City police and firefighters and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched for human remains, personal objects, and criminal evidence. Work could only be done in 45-minute shifts or the strain from watching the constantly moving material might result in vertigo.
...
A number of American flags, torn and battered, were found among the debris. Even small objects, such as souvenirs from the shops located at the World Trade Center, were recovered

source

Evidence Recovery
aircraft fragments, architectural remnants, weapons, and everyday objects​
source

4,257 human remains, that have resulted in the identification of over 300 individuals
to date.
Approximately 4,000 personal photographs
$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency (eta: they even counted it)
54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses​
Click to expand...
This is an article published by the NY State Museum that refers to non specific "criminal evidence". They only mention weapons which qualify as "criminal evidence".

This is not conformation that they tested for explosives.
 
Christopher7 said:
False

Provide source when making a claim please.

[FONT=&quot]NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/FONT]
Click to expand...

So the new strawman is that if NIST didn't do it, nobody did...I like this one. It pretends there was nothing going on, no FBI, no demolition experts at GZ.

It's a nice little denial fantasy.

But NIST did test steel samples and showed that they indeed reached temps above 250 celsius, which is, according to empirical science, enough to cause failure when steel is loaded to 50% to 70% of it's cold strength...

So we don't need exotic fantasy explosives, for which there is no evidence, when we already have empirical proof of the conditions.

'fire tests of Zeng et al.
(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250◦ C. '
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse
of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom