Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[excaza]

Forensic does not mean they were trained to recognize everything!

Uh, yes it does, that's the whole point of being a forensic investigator. Come back to reality please.

My understanding is that their primary concern was locating body parts.

Well, your understanding is wrong. Shocking.

 

[BigAl]

Forensic does not mean they were trained to recognize everything!

It just denotes the application of scientific methods and techniques.

My understanding is that their primary concern was locating body parts.

MM

Somebody better tell the NYPD bomb squad and their dogs and the FBI agents that all get at least basic training in explosives forensics.

 

[Myriad]

Forensic does not mean they were trained to recognize everything!

It just denotes the application of scientific methods and techniques.

Would a forensic examiner's training include what to do in the event of finding something the examiner does not recognize?

And what do you think a forensic examiner would be trained to do?

(a) Ignore it.

(b) Employ further examination, reference materials, and assistance from other forensic experts as needed to determine what it is.

(Pretend this was a multiple choice question from the Forensic Investigation 201 final exam. Which answer do you think would be marked correct?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[excaza]

(Pretend this was a multiple choice question from the Forensic Investigation 201 final exam. Which answer do you think would be marked correct?)

201? That's being generous.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well, just like most of the concrete survived...as dust, of course I expected
copper wire to remain in some mutilated form.

The question was more geared to how recognizable, would the remnants of any unused and relatively fragile det cord be, after those collapses.

Seeing as how the men going through it were cops and fire fighters, they would have to be drunk or too tired to drive to miss it. and copper wire used to conduct house current will not look like detonation leads. They mostly use det cord, anyway, in CD.

I missed the part where they said they were even looking, let alone know it if they saw it?

They are trained to recognize it. I had not even been a fire fighter for three years when i learned how to tell wiring and plumbing from munitions and incendiary residues.

 

[Bell]

Would a forensic examiner's training include what to do in the event of finding something the examiner does not recognize?

And what do you think a forensic examiner would be trained to do?

(a) Ignore it.

(b) Employ further examination, reference materials, and assistance from other forensic experts as needed to determine what it is.

(Pretend this was a multiple choice question from the Forensic Investigation 201 final exam. Which answer do you think would be marked correct?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Let me try, since I'll be starting my job with forensics in three weeks time...

Mmm...

Mmm...

...

No Planet X?

 

[Mr.Herbert]

Would a forensic examiner's training include what to do in the event of finding something the examiner does not recognize?

And what do you think a forensic examiner would be trained to do?

(a) Ignore it.

(b) Employ further examination, reference materials, and assistance from other forensic experts as needed to determine what it is.

(Pretend this was a multiple choice question from the Forensic Investigation 201 final exam. Which answer do you think would be marked correct?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Once again, the obvious answer is left out. Damn debunkers and their trick questions.

(c) Planet X


damn you BELL!

 

[Myriad]

201? That's being generous.

Well, considering how MM and his ilk consider forensic investigators to be morons who would fail to notice det cord, explosively deformed steel, and gobs of formerly molten iron all over everything, I imagined the 101 course would just be a series of pictures on flash cards: "Apple" "Dog" "Cat" "Gun" "Bomb" "Suitcase Of Cash" and so forth. That would leave the abstract stuff, like noticing something obvious even if you're not specifically looking for it, for the advanced courses.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[carlitos]

There were more than 50 FBI evidence teams at Fresh Kills. They are the world standard for forensic investigation. They didn't miss the miles of det cord, or the hundreds of radio transmitters, or the tons of therm*te. Because there were no such things.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Before getting engrossed in the minituae of what a trained forensics examiner knows and doesn't know, it's important to realize just how closely the rubble was examined by the investigators, as well as roughly how many investigators were involved:

And although this is a fire scene, it is also a crime scene, which means a large unit of crime scene investigators is present, working from a tent at the corner of West St. and Liberty. (p. 194)

NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman: "At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part.

Source: Report from Ground Zero, Dennis Smith

"Law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the NYC Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal."

Source: American Recycler, "Clean Up at World Trade Center to Take Many Months"

So who were those authorities?

• 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day
• 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists.
• New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm

I may be willing to accept that any given individual investigator might not have the competence to recognize demolitions remains in a particular instance, but we're not talking individuals here. We're talking multiple organizations, bringing to bear the knowledge and experience of the organization they represent. To accept that the investigation missed evidence of demolitions remains, you must posit that the NYPD (multiple divisions within that organization, such as the Crime Scene Unit as well as the regular uniformed officers), the FDNY, the FBI, the Customs Agency, and the New York/New Jersey Port Authority at minimum were not qualified or competent enough to judge whether explosives were present. That's far to big a pill to swallow, and if that's the thesis being presented, I'd need a far better argument than what's been given so far to just accept that it's even possible, let alone that it actually happened. Proving that all those agencies missed evidence of explosives is a whole other argument, and I'd demand evidence for that proposition.

 

[carlitos]

good post

I may be willing to accept that any given individual investigator might not have the competence to recognize demolitions remains in a particular instance, but we're not talking individuals here.

This really is the heart of the matter. Internet commandos simply cannot understand the entire picture. Why would they understand institutional knowledge, when they dismiss it entirely? To them, a high-school teacher narrating a youtube video, or a guy dropping cardboard boxes has not just equal, but superior knowledge to the world engineering community.

The whole thing is an argument from ignorance. Or, as Java Man put it a few days back, he just can't imagine that we were so vulnerable on 9/11.

 

[Disbelief]

a) Why would a legitimate controlled demolition company, with nothing to hide, employ technology that is controlled by the military?

b) The capability exists, but there is no reason to use it when existing methods are quite adequate and likely more cost effective.

c) WTC dust analysis by a reputable lab disagrees with you.

MM

a) Since when is thermite controlled by the military? They made some on Mythbusters.

b) When has thermite been proven capable of CDing a building? We all know the TM has doone nothing to prove it.

C) No, the dust analysis was extremely flawed. However, no amount of evidence will get a zealot like you to change your mind.

 

[Miragememories]

Would a forensic examiner's training include what to do in the event of finding something the examiner does not recognize?

And what do you think a forensic examiner would be trained to do?

(a) Ignore it.

(b) Employ further examination, reference materials, and assistance from other forensic experts as needed to determine what it is.

(Pretend this was a multiple choice question from the Forensic Investigation 201 final exam. Which answer do you think would be marked correct?)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Well they certainly had a lot of dust they failed to examine!!

MM

 

[beachnut]

a) Why would a legitimate controlled demolition company, with nothing to hide, employ technology that is controlled by the military?

What does this have to do with the eutectic?
LOL, I can make thermite. Kids on youtube can make thermite. oops

b) The capability exists, but there is no reason to use it when existing methods are quite adequate and likely more cost effective.

Fire is better; you are correct. All you need is a match, open some big gapping holes, and pour in 10,000 gallons of jet fuel and turn off the fire control system. Fly a jet into the building.

WTC 7, no water to fight fire. Bash out window and damage the side with large piece of WTC towers. You are right, it take no effort past what the terrorists did; and where does this leave the eutectic; the thread topic?

c) WTC dust analysis by a reputable lab disagrees with you. MM

Jones' failed thermite paper? LOL, it is not reputable, it is made up conclusions based on a failed physicist bias and insanity; he thinks the US caused the Haiti Earthquake. NUTS

The eutectic was not caused by thermite; thermite leave products not found anywhere in the WTC. Jones did not find thermite, he found Fe, Al, and other elements which do not burn with energy of thermite.

 

[excaza]

Well they certainly had a lot of dust they failed to examine!!

MM

Says you.

 

[332nd]

As Bob Dylan would put it, the times are a chagin. Haven't seen much of TruthersLie, must still be rubbing himself for that little glass window fiasco. Or maybe he's changing his name to DebunkersLie2. That would be the first honest thing he'd say all weekend long.

I guess years and years of debunkers placing the burden of proof on truthers has made debunkers a bit lax in the area of critical thinking.

Who should the burden of proof be on?

 

[Java Man]

Who should the burden of proof be on?

On whoever is bringing forth a theory. Be it truther or debunker.

 

[carlitos]

What's your theory, by the way?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

it sounded like you were implying the nist was not interesed in steel that wasnt stamped even though the steel

So you were discussing WTC 7 all of this time and not WTC 1 & 2 which was the subject of my response to Java... way to go...

so i guess that flanges that had been "reduced from an inch thick to paper thin" in so short amout of time is no interest to ya if its not stamped. the steel around these flanges might have been identifed to give a good guess as to where they were in the tower.

Which tower are you talking about this time?
WTC 1, 2, or 7?
You seem to be switching topics back and forth on me rather quickly and not giving any hint of it until we're half way into a conversation

i think you forgot to add what Ataneh-asl's expert opinion was concerning that steel, He adds, “That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot—perhaps around 2,000 degrees.”

2000oF is about 1000oC when converted to metric. The point at which steel becomes a half cooked wet noodle This is not the melting point of steel, let alone the temperature which your thermite burns

 

[332nd]

On whoever is bringing forth a theory. Be it truther or debunker.

So truthers are placing the burden of proof on themselves.