Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Dave Rogers]

This is a possibility and I have heard no other possibilities.

Elective deafness is a terrible disability.

Dave

 

[Oystein]

No, just asking for specific information.

Go to a science library.

 

[Oystein]

Amazing that he still has no idea about simple chemistry in combustion. Yet he continues to argue as if white smoke has absolutely no other source than thermite... If he'd only search google for a few seconds and...

he also has no idea about simple physics in combustion. We discussed temperatures for pages, and he never got despite being taught dozends of times.

Hopeless.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Are the 'truthers' on here arguing forexplosives or thermite? I can't seem to work out which it is?

 

[Oystein]

Are the 'truthers' on here arguing forexplosives or thermite? I can't seem to work out which it is?

All the bunch. Planes and missiles and thermite and thermate and hush-a-booms that made loud bangs and pull cables and space beams and holograms.
Cause you know, they got to do it secretly and inconspicuously. That's why they only involved less than 100,000 participants on the conspiracy.

 

[tsig]

Just in case there was any remaining doubt, the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal is completely defunct after the ridiculous nanothermite conspiracy paper hit it. The entire 2009 volume contains only three other articles, and all three combined are shorter than Dr. Jones's crazy ramble.

There is no 2010 volume.

We've discovered one positive effect of the Truth Movement: It killed a vanity journal masquerading as science for us.

By the way, everyone, please stop arguing with the leftover Truthers. You and I both know they are medically incapable of changing their minds.

I knew it! The powers that be have destroyed the journal becouse it told the TRUTh!!!!

 

[RedIbis]

I did not claim there were 20+ sources. You asked how many recording devices were operating in a position to record building-destroying detonations, and I calculated a reasonable estimate based on reasonable estimates of the average ownership rate of recording devices (1 per 2 adults), the average usage rate of such devices (2.5 hours of recording per year), the radius at which a detonation sufficient to compromise structural steel would be loud enough to be apparent in such recordings (3900 feet), and the weekday daytime population density of Manhattan (56% of 3.7 million people employed in NYC spread over 22 square miles).

(3700000 * .56 / 22) * 1/2 * 2.5/(24 * 365) * pi * ((3900 / 5280)^2) = 23

That's the approximate number of recordings one would expect if such an explosion had occurred completely without warning -- that is, assuming that no one was any more likely than at any average time to have picked up a camera and started recording something.

But of course that was not the case. Because of the momentous events already going on, this estimate based on the typical number of recording devices operating at any given random moment is way conservative, probably by orders of magnitude. (Some factors might tend to push the number in the other direction, such as the large number of people who had evacuated the area by the time building 7 collapse, but keep in mind that people making recordings of events of the day -- such as for instance reporters -- would be more likely to stay.)

If you think there are any recordings of detonations capable of compromising the structural steel of a skyscraper, it's up to you to go find them.

Respectfully,
Myriad

You're frikkin' joking right? We're talking about lower Manhattan on 9/11, hours after a rather large perimeter was established and you think there would be over 20 recording devices able to pick up the collapse.

You made the claim, back it up or rather simply provide a list of those documented sources for the audio of the collapse or spare us the goofy attempt at "debunking."

 

[funk de fino]

you need to learn to read. im speaking of the one astaneh-asl saw from wtc 7. i know which piece you are talking about and its from one of the wtc towers NOT wtc 7.

So what? I made a claim. You said it was wrong. It is in fact true. You are incorrect. Learn to read.

 

[triforcharity]

Please post specific links. When I google these I get a bunch of forum discussions.

Do any of these use data from the TT or are they just more "theoretical" suppositions?

All, except for one I believe, (the PBS one) are peer-reviewed papers that appear in RESPECTABLE journals.

I guess your Google-Fu is broken. Don't paste the ENTIRE post in google, just the individual lines.

 

[triforcharity]

An Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I
Ayhan Irfanoglu and Christoph M. Hoffmann

"We estimate that a core collapse mechanism could be initiated if the tower core column temperatures were elevated to about 700^oC."

NIST confirmed column temperatures of 250^oC.

The core area was mostly elevator shafts, air ducts and bathrooms. There is no basis for the 700^oC temperatures.

Argument from personal ignorance noted.

 

[triforcharity]

This has nothing to do with the collapse.

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Abstract

On September 11, 2001, two airplanes hit World Trade Center (WTC) 1 and 2 sixteen minutes apart, which forced one of the largest evacuations from high-rise buildings in US history. Path analysis is used to analyze telephone data obtained from WTC survivors to empirically determine if the theories from community evacuation hold true for building fires. Results show that community evacuation theories do hold true for building fires; specifically in WTC 1 and 2. In general, longer pre-evacuation times were predicted by witnessing a higher number of environmental cues, being on a lower floor in the building, obtaining more information, seeking additional information, and performing a higher number of pre-evacuation actions. A deeper understanding of human behavior in fire events can be gained by using path analysis techniques, which can ultimately improve evacuation education, training, and procedures for high-rise buildings across the world as well as future evacuation prediction techniques.

Maybe you will realize that NISTactually used this very paper as a reference......

 

[triforcharity]

So what? You attack the journal because you cannot dispute the pretty pictures of the thermite chips with the iron spheres attached or the data. You can call these professionals liars but you are not qualified to wipe their ass.

This is just the tried and true "Kill the messenger, ignore the message" that deniers have run into the ground.

Until a qualified person or group publishes a rebuttal in a journal, all your hand waving and name calling is just a bunch of childish denial prattle.

Your resident "expert" slithered back into his hole rather than post his credentials, which I doubt he has. Mr. Mackey calls himself a "scientist". That's a pretty generic term. He has yet to say what his degree is in. For all we know it's in wedgie-weaving.

The journal is a sham journal, that aparently nobody reads anymore. I wonder why? Maybe because it publishes trash?

There are many people here, Including Ryan Mackey that are MORE than qualified. In fact, I think I found his published papers.
http://de.scientificcommons.org/ryan_mackey

Yeah, rocket scientist. I think he is well qualified to just a silly paper with major flaws. Hell, so am I.

 

[AZCat]

NIST did NOT mention Sample #1 [from WTC 7] in the final report on WTC 7. NIST mentioned the samples but did NOT explain how they melted in the Final report on the TT. They just described what happened to Sample #2.

They mentioned it in NCSTAR 1-3C in the same section as Sample #2 (see page 233 of 1-3C), which is part of the same investigation as the report on WTC 7. Maybe they didn't go into as much detail as you would have liked, but that's not what you claimed.

 

[Christopher7]

There is no other explanation for melted beam in the FEMA C report.

In your opinion.

How did the sulfur invade the grain boundary if not in a thermate reaction?

The WPI experiment used compacted powder and heated the beam to 1100^oC. That is totally unrealistic.

The fires would have been put out in the collapse. The 727^oC [1340^oF] temperatures on the surface a few days later indicate much higher temperatures under the rubble. They had been pouring water on the pile all that time and it had rained. The supposition that smoldering debris could reach those temperatures in that time is far fetched.

 

[Dave Rogers]

How did the sulfur invade the grain boundary if not in a thermate reaction?

Sulphur could only have invaded the grain boundary if not in a thermite reaction. If it had been in a thermite reaction, there would be no grain boundary to invade. Liquids don't have grain boundaries.

The WPI experiment used compacted powder and heated the beam to 1100^oC. That is totally unrealistic.

Compacted powder seems a reasonable result of a buiding collapse. People who actually understand thermodynamics can appreciate why 1100ºC is a feasible temperature.

The fires would have been put out in the collapse.

Not really relevant, even though it's nothing more than your guess, because the combustible materials would have remained above their ignition temperatures and would therefore have re-ignited immediately.

The 727^oC [1340^oF] temperatures on the surface a few days later indicate much higher temperatures under the rubble. They had been pouring water on the pile all that time and it had rained. The supposition that this saw caused by smoldering debris is far fetched.

Mackey is right. You're incapable of understanding why your arguments don't make sense, otherwise you'd do something other than repeating them.

Dave

 

[Myriad]

You're frikkin' joking right? We're talking about lower Manhattan on 9/11, hours after a rather large perimeter was established and you think there would be over 20 recording devices able to pick up the collapse.

True, as I already said. Under the actual circumstances, the estimate of the number based on average usage of recording devices is almost certainly low by a large amount. Once a perimeter is established, most reporters and local spectators would be concentrated near it.

You made the claim, back it up or rather simply provide a list of those documented sources for the audio of the collapse or spare us the goofy attempt at "debunking."

I made no claim regarding the existence of documented sources. My claim concerns the operation of recording devices during the event. I suggest not demanding that I back up a claim I did not make, because doing so makes you come across as very dishonest, which I'm sure you do not want.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[beachnut]

How did the sulfur invade the grain boundary if not in a thermate reaction?
...

Thermite would leave a pile of iron attached to the area. Oops, no thermite. Jones made up thermite, that is insane. Jones thinks the United States caused the earthquake in Haiti; Insane! You are spewing lies from idiots; who are your PhD idiots who can't join reality on 911? 8 years of failure from 911 truth, are you trying to make it 8 more?

 

[RedIbis]

True, as I already said. Under the actual circumstances, the estimate of the number based on average usage of recording devices is almost certainly low by a large amount. Once a perimeter is established, most reporters and local spectators would be concentrated near it.




I made no claim regarding the existence of documented sources. My claim concerns the operation of recording devices during the event. I suggest not demanding that I back up a claim I did not make, because doing so makes you come across as very dishonest, which I'm sure you do not want.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Me:"How many of such devices do you suggest were close enough to the bldg at the time of collapse?

You: "Approximately twenty-three."

Sounds like a claim to me.

 

[Myriad]

Me:"How many of such devices do you suggest were close enough to the bldg at the time of collapse?

You: "Approximately twenty-three."

Sounds like a claim to me.

Yes. You asked for a number and I responded with a number. And I showed my work at arriving at that number. I claim that that number is a justifiable (though very low) figure that answers your question.

To which you responded: "You made the claim, back it up or rather simply provide a list of those documented sources for the audio of the collapse or spare us the goofy attempt at "debunking." (emphasis added) The use of the word "those" implies that the existence of such "documented sources" was included in my claim, which misrepresents my claim and in so doing makes you appear dishonest, disrespectful, and manipulative. That is the error I am suggesting that, for the sake of your own credibility, you do not repeat.

Not that this needs to be explained, but an answer to a question of "how many" of something exists is in no way a claim to the existence of documentation of each individual instance, no matter how much you try to spin it that way. If you asked me how many people lived in Rome in AD 50, and I gave you an estimate based on the best available historical and archaeological information, would you then demand all their names and addresses (or perhaps links to their Web pages) as necessary to back up my claim? Well, perhaps you would, I don't know, but if you did it would similarly make you appear not only dishonest but ridiculous.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[RedIbis]

Yes. You asked for a number and I responded with a number. And I showed my work at arriving at that number. I claim that that number is a justifiable (though very low) figure that answers your question.

You might have a point beyond semantics if I didn't use the verb, "were" in my question.