Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Reactor drone said:
Also, if some people are claiming that the steel wasn't examined, how did they find these pieces that had the eutectic corrosion?
Click to expand...

But they didn't examine the pieces so eutectic corrosion can't be ruled out either.
 
Last edited:
alienentity said:
LOL, you're bringing in the 'no steel examined' canard.

Care to provide evidence that the steel wasn't inspected?
Click to expand...

To prove that no inspection was done I need to provide what? An empty cabinet? A folder with no pages? A blank report?

Don't be ridiculous, YOU need to provide evidence that the steel WAS inspected. Not the other way around.
 
Christopher7 said:
[FONT=&quot]NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]NIST reply to stj911truth[/FONT]
 [FONT=&quot]http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. I just read section E. The WTC Steel Temperature (p 3)

Love the part were it says that although none of the recovered samples were found to exceed 250 degrees that doesn't rule out that other parts which were not recovered could have exceeded 250 degrees. In NIST's own words "it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250°C".

That's lovely!!! Why find evidence for something if we can make the sample size so small we can claim whatever we feel like.
 
Java Man said:
To prove that no inspection was done I need to provide what? An empty cabinet? A folder with no pages? A blank report?

Don't be ridiculous, YOU need to provide evidence that the steel WAS inspected. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Hahaha! You made the claim that the steel wasn't inspected. You back up the claim.

Oh, you can't. So you try to make me do the work for you. Sorry, it don't work that way son. You make the claim, you provide the proof.

Capiche?
 
In the spirit of Java Man, I hereby declare that when I make a claim, others must provide the evidence! Wow, that's a new level of couch-potato investigation.

How much per hour do you charge for this kind of lazy-a$$ work? LMAO
 
alienentity said:
Hahaha! You made the claim that the steel wasn't inspected. You back up the claim.

Oh, you can't. So you try to make me do the work for you. Sorry, it don't work that way son. You make the claim, you provide the proof.

Capiche?
Click to expand...

Capisco ragazzo

I already addressed the issue with the NIST quote "it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250°C".

Clearly NIST admits the sample was too small. Not only that they concluded something happened because nothing to support it was found because the sample was too small.

So I can claim explosives were used because it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size that no explosives were used. Even though no explosive afflicted beams were ever found.
 
Where was NIST when I was at school??? I would have gotten A+ on all my exams!!!
 
alienentity said:
In the spirit of Java Man, I hereby declare that when I make a claim, others must provide the evidence! Wow, that's a new level of couch-potato investigation.

How much per hour do you charge for this kind of lazy-a$$ work? LMAO
Click to expand...

Truthers must be the laziest buggers on the planet.
 
Hey kids try this at school. It's called the NIST technique. In a final exam just answer one out of the twenty questions and actually answer it wrong (it's really important you get it wrong). Then go to the teacher and say that the sample was too small and it can't be extrapolated to the other questions you didn't answer. Claim then that you deserve an A because the other answers would have been right had you answered them.
 
Java Man said:
Hey kids try this at school. It's called the NIST technique. In a final exam just answer one out of the twenty questions and actually answer it wrong (it's really important you get it wrong). Then go to the teacher and say that the sample was too small and it can't be extrapolated to the other questions you didn't answer. Claim then that you deserve an A because the other answers would have been right had you answered them.
Click to expand...

Boy, that's a really funny analogy.
 
Java Man said:
I already addressed the issue with the NIST quote "it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250°C".

Clearly NIST admits the sample was too small. Not only that they concluded something happened because nothing to support it was found because the sample was too small.
Click to expand...

NIST as well had a very clear criteria for their choice of samples. Their samples still had identifiable markings which could be used to determine their as-built locations prior to the collapse of the building. Conspiracy theorists seem to be of the mind that they should have simply gathered samples from the impact region without even knowing if the samples where actually from there or not. I suppose if you support an investigation that doesn't have any clear criteria that's your business, but you clearly need to understand the report you're criticizing. Pretending to find a middle-ground between conspiracy wooo and science, isn't working well for you.


And let me guess, since you've brought up every standard woo canard already... if given the chance you would also argue that because "no steel frame highrise has ever collapsed by fire before" the burden of proof for NIST's case is even greater!!!! =O

Right?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom