Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[triforcharity]

There are a lot of assumptions. This is not science, it's supposition.

So the density is probably not the 2.4 grams per cubic centimeter of bulk concrete but much less.
Second, the dust wasn't an inch thick over a square mile. Photos show dust an inch or so deep in the immediate vicinity of the towers,
Between the low density of the dust, the fact that most of the dust landed close to the towers, and the fact that half of the dust was materials other than concrete, the volume of concrete represented in the airborne dust is maybe 10% of the volume of the settled dust itself. This is the dust off site. Of course, the dust on the collapse site itself is from the building collapse.
So, in place of estimating that the towers could make a disk an inch thick and a mile in diameter, we have to reduce the volume of the dust by a factor of 3 to model the dust pile as a cone. We reduce that by a factor of at least 2 and probably a lot more to account for the porous nature of dust, and by another factor of 2 to account for the fact that half the dust is not concrete. So we have to reduce the estimates of the concrete dust volume by at least a factor of 12. So instead of a million tons of concrete dust we have 80,000 or less.

Wait, now we have 80,000 tons of concrete dust? That is about 3.5 USS Ronal Reagans!! HOLY ****!!!

 

[triforcharity]

I have enough common sense not to try.

And yet, here you are, trying.

 

[TSR]

The explanations are suppositions. This is not credible.

.
No, they are not suppositions. They are explanations of the suppositions which form the basis of the calculations, which explanations you have not even tried to actually *demonstrate* are invalid.
.

I have enough common sense not to try.

.
Then we can safely dismiss your opinions, since you yourself admit they are nonsensical and unsupportable.
.

 

[R.Mackey]

Wow, got that one correct! Now, where do you get this 50,000 TONS of concrete dust from? Which, btw, is the same as 2.5 USS Ronald Reagans.

Nimitz-class carriers displace about 105,000 tonnes at full load, not 20,000. [/public service announcement]

 

[AZCat]

Nimitz-class carriers displace about 105,000 tonnes at full load, not 20,000. [/public service announcement]

So nice of you to drop by. What - is NWO Central not needing your LEET sciencey skillz at the moment?

 

[R.Mackey]

No, just peeking in once in a while to see what's left of the Truthers.

Same ol', same ol'. They haven't learned a single blessed thing.

 

[AZCat]

No, just peeking in once in a while to see what's left of the Truthers.

Same ol', same ol'. They haven't learned a single blessed thing.

Nope, you haven't missed much. It's all cycles anyhow. We're back to 2006, in case you haven't noticed.

They are a welcome break from difficult clients, though. I think of them as a dip in the kiddy pool after swimming in open water.

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

Then we can add "suggest" and "approximately" to the long list of words you choose not to understand.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

First: A reasonable estimate of how much concrete was turned to powder must be established using a scientific method that can be verified.

Second: The amount of debris ejected outside the footprint must be determined using a scientific method that can be verified.

Third: Since powder cannot turn concrete into powder, the amount of powdered concrete and drywall, and when it was powdered must be calculated using a scientific method that can be verified.

In other words. It would take a super computer to do the calculations and even then it would be based on a series of educated guesses.

So what you're saying is that we cannot know with any certainty the amount of dust produced, nor the particle size distribution to which it was crushed. What does this mean for your deduction that collapse must have been arrested by the energy required for concrete crushing? Quite simply, it invalidates it completely. Your deduction is based on the assumption that the entire mass of concrete in the towers was crushed to a uniform 60µm particle size. As you have stated above, verification of this would require supercomputer calculations based on a series of educated guesses. In fact, the 60µm size is taken from a study of a restricted sample of the dust, and is therefore utterly worthless as a measure of the global particle size distribution.

Now, let me remind you that you are the one putting forward arguments based on the concrete particle size distribution. If you now choose to reject the possibility that the particle size distribution can be known in order to dispute any refutation of your argument, you are refuting your argument yourself in order to do so.

So we can ignore any arguments based on concrete crushing. That's a big step forward.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Then we can add "suggest" and "approximately" to the long list of words you choose not to understand.

Dave

I understand them just fine. Do you or Myriad understand the word, 'were'?

 

[TheRedWorm]

Also, hypothesis. You don't seem to like that word overly much, as you've never given yours.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I understand them just fine. Do you or Myriad understand the word, 'were'?

Looks like every one of us understands 'were' just fine. Having C7 and MM hijack your thread with irrelevant crap though is getting annoying, and I'd like to - if possible - get you to discuss what you brought up in the OP. I understand the noise that is being created here is making it difficult to focus on one issue but I'd like to see what exactly makes this individual you cited more competent than the NIST report. What aspects of his research did you find most credible? Again I've seen his work before and am thus far disappointed at his incompetent methodology. Am I missing something that you spotted which makes him a credible example of competent research?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you or Myriad understand the word, 'were'?

Yes, even when used in the past subjunctive.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Nimitz-class carriers displace about 105,000 tonnes at full load, not 20,000. [/public service announcement]

My bad, read the fact sheet wrong....

 

[Andy_Ross]

So how did the thermite turn concrete into dust?
Or was it explosives that turned concrete into dust?

Isn't the story that the explosives were used to cut steel beams?
How did that turn all the concrete into dust?
Were there thermite charges to cut the beams and extra explosives to pulverise the concrete?

It's so confusing.

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, even when used in the past subjunctive.

Dave

Except it weren't, I mean, wasn't in the subjunctive.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except it weren't, I mean, wasn't in the subjunctive.

Myriad suggested that there were approximately twenty-three.

Looks like the subjunctive mood^WP to me.

In grammar, the subjunctive mood (abbreviated sjv or sbjv) is a verb mood typically used in dependent clauses to express a wish, emotion, possibility, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred.

I'll add "subjunctive" to the list, then.

Dave

 

[Myriad]

Actually I didn't use the word "were," Red did in his question. Right next to the word "suggest."

Beyond that, I honestly have no idea what Red is trying to claim, suggest, imply, or insinuate by pointing out that the word "were" appeared in his question. Pending further data, I provisionally conclude that he is making irrelevant noise to distract from the obvious way he attempted to misrepresent my answer as a claim of "documented sources."

Respectfully,
Myriad

ETA: Fermi Questions

Try this one: How many piano tuners saw (as in eyewitnessed, not on TV) the second plane hit the tower on 9/11?

 

[Oystein]

So how did the thermite turn concrete into dust?
Or was it explosives that turned concrete into dust?

Isn't the story that the explosives were used to cut steel beams?
How did that turn all the concrete into dust?
Were there thermite charges to cut the beams and extra explosives to pulverise the concrete?

It's so confusing.

May I add: if the potential energy of the buildings (on the order of a small nuclear bomb per tower, iirc) was way to little to little to do the damage, which mass of themite and/or explosive would habe sufficed? Would a few dozend tons of TNT suffice?

 

[RedIbis]

Myriad suggested that there were approximately twenty-three.

Looks like the subjunctive mood^WP to me.



I'll add "subjunctive" to the list, then.

Dave

Add it to your own list of misunderstood concepts. For one, the verb in question was not used in a dependent clause; it was not the expression of a request or wish, and it was not in reference to something that did not happen, but something that did happen. It was simply indicative, which is the mood used for questions, not subjunctive.

At this point you can simply say, I was wrong, I made a mistake or you can continue to be petulant in an effort to defend Myriad's bizarre statistical analysis when he was asked, how many recording devices were in a position to record the collapse of WTC 7.

I didn't ask how many there could have been, or how many might there have been, I simply asked him how many he suggests were there. To which he said, approximately 23. So according to him, there were a little more or less than 23 recording devices that were in a position to record the collapse.