Merged Has this structural engineer been debunked? / Astaneh-Asl "melting of girders"

[Oystein]

I'm putting Senemut back onto ignore - It's impossible to have a conversation when one person ignores what you write or simply doesn't understand even though it's been explained dozens of times - it's a complete waste of time when someone can't answer a simple question and then writes a response that has no bearing on the question. I suspect that this is Senenmut's tactic - to just keep on and on getting things wrong and mixed up on purpose and then declare victory. I've got better things to do than waste time with such a dishonest person.

I suggest you do the same Oystein, because he seems to not be able to comprehend anything that is written.

You can talk to yourself Senenmut.

Yes, conversation ends.

He again answered questions I didn't ask and threw in more red herrings.

Gotta say thought that's pretty high quality trolling.

 

[ozeco41]

Yes, conversation ends.

He again answered questions I didn't ask and threw in more red herrings.

Gotta say thought that's pretty high quality trolling.

Possibly "high quality" but not "high efficiency".

Recall my proposals for a trolling efficiency index. His efficiency is quite low.

He has been doing as much work avoiding the issue as you and Sunstealer have in posing the questions. Mostly one for one correlation. Post - response - further post - further response... So his "Raw Trolling Efficiency" --- e^T(raw) = 1(approx). We have others on record who have achieved 20:1 - 20 responses for a single trolling post.

 

[Gamolon]

Senenmut,

How come "kinfe-like" edge of the beam in this picture you say was produced by thermite...
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/knifebeam_zps972f8433.jpg[/qimg]

...looks nothing like the thermite cut in this experiment?
[qimg]http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/thermitecut_zps2994c590.png[/qimg]

Senenmut,

Are you going to answer the question? Why did the experiment with thermite NOT produce the same "knife-like" edges seen in the first picture? Where is the "blackened" steel that should be surrounding the "knife-like edges".

Can you please also answer the question below?

Question.

Are saying that the components such as sulfur and high temperatures needed to create this eutectic reaction occurred AFTER the thermite finished supposedly burning on the steel members or are you saying that the components such as sulfur and high temperatures needed to create this eutectic reaction occurred DURING during the very short time the thermite supposedly burned?

 

[Gamolon]

Well I could be wrong but I think one of the points Gamalon is making is the 'detail' in thermite cuts that has large blobs of slag frozen as it flowed away from the reaction.

Care to answer why we cannot see that detail in the 'knife edge' beam?

IOW can you show that thermite can be used in such a way as to create a similar knife edged beam?
Your arguement seems to be that it has not been shown to be eutectic action that caused it therefore thermite but that's simply not good enough. The paper demonstrates that eutectic errosion can be made to occur in similar fashion to whatever caused the large scale errosion of the WTC sample.BUT your side of the fence has not, to my knowledge demonstrated that thermite can do so at all.

That is exactly what I am asking Senemut.

The experiment in no way resembles the "knife-like" edges shown in Astaneh's photo. There is no gradual thickness degradation shown in the thermite experiment.

Why not?

There are no "blackened" areas around the "knife-like" edges nor is there the "slag" either.

Why not?

 

[Oystein]

That is exactly what I am asking Senemut.

The experiment in no way resembles the "knife-like" edges shown in Astaneh's photo. There is no gradual thickness degradation shown in the thermite experiment.

Why not?

There are no "blackened" areas around the "knife-like" edges nor is there the "slag" either.

Why not?

Also, Cole has not done any metallurgical analysis of the resulting slack, the heated steel, and the changes in the steel's microstructure, so how could we even start to compare his experiment with the work by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson? It was merely a myth-buster show-effect extravaganda, made for the YouTube generation and not for scholarly comsumption, designed to impress and fool the gullible.

 

[Sunstealer]

Also, Cole has not done any metallurgical analysis of the resulting slack, the heated steel, and the changes in the steel's microstructure, so how could we even start to compare his experiment with the work by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson? It was merely a myth-buster show-effect extravaganda, made for the YouTube generation and not for scholarly comsumption, designed to impress and fool the gullible.

Cole had no idea what temperature any part of his steel reached.

That's a basic failure right there.

This is why I asked Senenmut for a test plan for an experiment. Instead of providing one he just stated

jon coles experiment. youve seen it.

(Note the lack of grammar).

A test plan would state exactly how you are going to measure and record the temperature the steel reached along with other proceedures.

Sissons does this by using a controlled environment, namely a furnace, which by it's very nature has to be calibrated, will include a real time temperature reading, has the ability to set a maximum temperature and heating rate.

Even though a furnace has these features you never simply rely on the furnace reading. A calibrated thermocouple with a temperature display such as a digital reading or a paper chart is always used alongside, with the thermocouple point touching the sample. There are a number of reasons for this additional measure including furnace "hot and cold spots" i.e. non-uniform temperature across the furnace, furnace not directly measuring temperature of the test piece/sample and less accurate calibration. You always want confirmation of what the furnace temperature is reading.

It's these details that Jon Cole and Senemut would never be aware of, so it's impossible for them to perform any experiment. Again because they are unaware of this basic requirement then they fail to see why Sissons had to use a furnace in a laboratory environment and not a bonfire in a field.

This is basic stuff here. Accurate measurement is a fundamental part of the scientific process. It's taught in science classes at an early age. Later "experimental error" (accuracy/measurement error) is taught so that the student understands; the limitations of his measurements and equipment, random error, systematic error, uncertainty, statistics etc.

Even if we accept that Cole didn't have accurate temperature measurement, then the lack of metallurgical analysis makes his experiment completely worthless. Barnett, Sissons and Vander Voort may have had an idea of the temperature range or corrosion mechanism by macro visual analysis (looking at the sample with eyes and maybe a magnifying glass/eyeglass), but there is no way to know until a proper analysis is made.

Again, a test plan would state exactly the method of analysis to be used. Senenmut fails to provide one, showing once again, that he has no clue as to the requirements for any experiment.

It's through metallography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallography) that they were able to give temperature ranges and show the corrosion mechanism. Cole does none of this, yet states "no eutectic corrosion took place". How would he know unless he had a metallurgical analysis performed? This has been pointed out time after time after time, but is still not acknowledged. Truthers never acknowledge failures. (Even in this thread it was shown that Dr Asteneh-Asl didn't use the words "vaporize" or "searing temperatures" yet Senenmut refuses to acknowledge this or apologise for dishonesty)

As you say, Cole's "experiment" simply impresses the ignorant and the gullible.

 

[LSSBB]

Possibly "high quality" but not "high efficiency".

Recall my proposals for a trolling efficiency index. His efficiency is quite low.

He has been doing as much work avoiding the issue as you and Sunstealer have in posing the questions. Mostly one for one correlation. Post - response - further post - further response... So his "Raw Trolling Efficiency" --- e^T(raw) = 1(approx). We have others on record who have achieved 20:1 - 20 responses for a single trolling post.

I think you need to do a time series on that, Oz. Sometimes a troll has been at this a while so most folks don't play with them anymore. Earlier in their career they may have had more responses, with some spikes usually from nubes or when they puts up a good show for a post, and then inevitably coast into evasion.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Why is Cole's experiment being brought up again? If I'm off topic, forgive me, but: What he did is hardly a refutation of the Worcester researcher's work, nor is it even a decent replication of the rubble pile conditions. What we know from the EPA studies, the UC Delta group research, the NIH and EPA studies, and so on tell us that there was a veritable chemical stew going on in the pile. Heck, UC Davis's summary actually uses the term "chemical factory", and their formal findings show a definite measure of aerosolized sulfur/sulfur containing compounds, which pretty strongly aids Worcester's findings in proving that there was indeed available sulfur. Throwing some junk together and letting it smolder does not reach the same level of pertinence.

Cole's stunt has no bearing on what we know about the rubble pile fires. His experiment compares to the actual fires, let alone the real academic work done by researchers like the Worcester group as Mort Drucker's work compares to the real subjects. The only differnce is that Drucker knew his were caricatures.

This, again, goes back to the notion of truthers wanting to give the appearance of legitimate debate. There's barely any form there in the "challenges" to the Worcester work, much less real substance.

 

[carlitos]

Why is Cole's experiment being brought up again?

 

[ozeco41]

I think you need to do a time series on that, Oz. Sometimes a troll has been at this a while so most folks don't play with them anymore. Earlier in their career they may have had more responses, with some spikes usually from nubes or when they puts up a good show for a post, and then inevitably coast into evasion.

I understand your suggestion however recall that the trolling efficiency index is defined by e^T = (p^R/p^T)*(k^int/ k^dem)

...where k^dem is a demerit score for relying on insults; AND k^int is a cleverness score for managing to consistently appear stupid without revealing any underlying intelligence.

If both those merit/demerit factors are periodically updated the overall effect would go a long way to dealing with the variations over time.

Note that Senenmut's recent posts showed minor slips in both those aspects where his posts had previously been of high standard.

One example is the reference to canine entry into domestic cooking facilities. If the effect of that simple slip is factored in it will affect both factors. It was both mildly insulting (k^dem) and revealed a knowledge (k^int) of colloquial English which was at odds with the long presumed language characteristics.

Probably the more urgent need at present is to develop the debunker side performance measure so we can assess both sides of these episodes. That one will also have opposing factors - willingness to persist in explaining versus carrying on after the intention to not learn is well established. So it would be a sort of "Debunker Stubbornness Index" -- "DSI"





PS On further thought, with cynical mode engaged, "DSI" could be to risky. Truthers/trolls could parody by changing "Stubbornness" to something less complimentary.

 

[LSSBB]

Probably the more urgent need at present is to develop the debunker side performance measure so we can assess both sides of these episodes. That one will also have opposing factors - willingness to persist in explaining versus carrying on after the intention to not learn is well established. So it would be a sort of "Debunker Stubbornness Index" -- "DSI"





PS On further thought, with cynical mode engaged, "DSI" could be to risky. Truthers/trolls could parody by changing "Stubbornness" to something less complimentary.

I can see the DSI (or some renamed variant metric) being of use. I'm afraid that more than once it would provide stubborn feedback that I might find embarrassing. Especially if a troll found a hot button item on my agenda. Trolls seem quite proficient at uncovering triggers with their intended victims - they are much like teenagers in that regard.

ETA: all off topic of course, however this thread does seem to not be heading anywhere anyway.

 

[ozeco41]

...ETA: all off topic of course, however this thread does seem to not be heading anywhere anyway.

I would argue that discussing the meta-process aspect of why the topic is not progressing is more relevant to the topic than detail level technical sparring which does not progress the discussion...

....



Still I can now leave it there -- the point having been made.

 

[Senenmut]

Yes, conversation ends.

He again answered questions I didn't ask and threw in more red herrings.

Gotta say thought that's pretty high quality trolling.

fema did not get to the site until a month after 911. so why would he say days instead of weeks or a month?

 

[Senenmut]

Senenmut,

Are you going to answer the question? Why did the experiment with thermite NOT produce the same "knife-like" edges seen in the first picture? Where is the "blackened" steel that should be surrounding the "knife-like edges".

Can you please also answer the question below?

it was probably used differently. see the similarities:
fema bpat report wtc7 beam:



the steel astaneh photographed:

 

[Senenmut]

Even in this thread it was shown that Dr Asteneh-Asl didn't use the words "vaporize" or "searing temperatures" yet Senenmut refuses to acknowledge this or apologise for dishonesty

As you say, Cole's "experiment" simply impresses the ignorant and the gullible.

ive emailed that article to astaneh and he has never stated that he didnt say that. he might have mentioned that to chang who put it into the article. chang was describing something they both saw.

cole does a better job at trying to emulate the office/debris fire than sisson does.

 

[beachnut]

fema did not get to the site until a month after 911. so why would he say days instead of weeks or a month?

Physics of fire? Reality?

It is funny, you show corroded steel as your proof of thermite, and no damage from thermite is shown. What made you fall for the fantasy of thermite with no evidence.

Dr. A says your conspiracy theories are nonsense. Case closed.

 

[Senenmut]

I think you need to do a time series on that, Oz. Sometimes a troll has been at this a while so most folks don't play with them anymore. Earlier in their career they may have had more responses, with some spikes usually from nubes or when they puts up a good show for a post, and then inevitably coast into evasion.

lets do this, read page 283-285 in the nist report. (floor truss material)
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=101019

tell me what happens when tht steel reaches the A3 line and then cools. now contrast that to the wtc paper:
http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

if the steel did indeed stay in the pile for "days", weeks or a month, and those corroded areas analyzed that had to be at leat 940C for the eutectic to occur, why did they have microstructes that says otherwise?

what do you think prof sisson's a36 steel microstructure looked like when heated to 1100C for 24hrs?

 

[jaydeehess]

it was probably used differently. see the similarities:
fema bpat report wtc7 beam:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854450f1b21e84975.jpg[/qimg]

the steel astaneh photographed:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2854449b6c54b826e6.jpg[/qimg][/ur
l]

Definite fail!
If anyone is going to propose that thermite can erode a steel structural member and produce a thin "knife edge", then that extrodinary claim should be backed up by something better than "probably used differentlly"
After 11.5 years someone should have been able to reproduce such an artifact using thermite. Its not like thermite or steel beams are particularily expensive.

The same applies to microstructures. IF you claim thermite was used to create these eroded steel members then demonstrate it is possible. Remember , you are trying to come up with a mechanism by which bildings were caused to collapse whereas in the matter of eroded steel, NIST is not considering it significant to, or related to, cause of collapse.

 

[Senenmut]

That is exactly what I am asking Senemut.

The experiment in no way resembles the "knife-like" edges shown in Astaneh's photo. There is no gradual thickness degradation shown in the thermite experiment.

Why not?

There are no "blackened" areas around the "knife-like" edges nor is there the "slag" either.

Why not?

no slag? the steel from the fema bpat report on the wtc7 steel and the steel beam astaneh photographed look very similar. did the fema report have slag on it?

 

[Ape of Good Hope]

ive emailed that article to astaneh and he has never stated that he didnt say that.

You did and he didn't and not but either is and then and Chang