Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[tsig]

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

You left out the obvious. Hide it and ship it to China.

 

[332nd]

Yes, and debunkers on themselves when they put forth a theory. Being a debunker doesn't make your arguments valid just because. As we have seen over the course of the weekend many debunker arguments were assumed to be true because they came from a debunker and sounded somewhat reasonable. Truth is many of these were thrown down and proven wrong or unsuited to challenge truther claims.

Really? How many? Also, how many of the truthers arguments were thrown down and proven wrong?

 

[Senenmut]

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...

the "vaporzied" steel was from wtc 7.... 15.9mm of a36 steel gone in 9 days. the flanges that were an inch that had been reduced to "razor thin" was from one the twin towers and that happened in the timeframe of sept 19-29th.

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.

maybe ya need to keep up sparky!

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

where do ya think that steel piece is. dont ya think it would be important considering what alienentity said "no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time."
didnt the nist conclude also that the maximum temp reached was like 1800f?

 

[funk de fino]

And the report can be found where?

There are names and companies you can contact. I know you won't. Neither will C7.

 

[funk de fino]

[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]

This is a typical red herring from a liar. No-one said they did. There were other people who examined the steel. Demo teams and forensic investigators. They kept steel for further investigation by FEMA and NIST.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

where do ya think that steel piece is. dont ya think it would be important considering what alienentity said "no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time."
didnt the nist conclude also that the maximum temp reached was like 1800f?

No I don't think your evidence is important. Because your evidence is based on an illiteracy in reading the report you're referencing.


As for your first quote, unfortunately I haven't the experience in chemistry to speak about the technical details on the "vaporization." But as a laymen it does not sound like a behavior to expect from a thermite reaction which physically liquefies the steel rather than simply erodes it. Anybody with relevant experience is free to link to something that could help answer this better

 

[triforcharity]

Really? I hope your loud sounding arguments don't turn out debunked like TruthersLie's about sonic booms blowing windows to seventh heaven. Just like TruthersLie you're trying to convince by loud talking. But who were these people? Where did they come from? What were their credentials? How do you know they were so knowledgeable. Were they all equally experienced? How long were their shifts? Did they rest enough to be able to perform this job well? And if so where are the facts?

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

http://www.marcor.com/index.cfm/do/casestudy.detail/id/12

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020909/landfill/1.html

Google My Friend. Google.

 

[BigAl]

Originally Posted by Java Man
Really? I hope your loud sounding arguments don't turn out debunked like TruthersLie's about sonic booms blowing windows to seventh heaven. Just like TruthersLie you're trying to convince by loud talking. But who were these people? Where did they come from? What were their credentials? How do you know they were so knowledgeable. Were they all equally experienced? How long were their shifts? Did they rest enough to be able to perform this job well? And if so where are the facts?

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

http://www.marcor.com/index.cfm/do/casestudy.detail/id/12

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020909/landfill/1.html

Google My Friend. Google.

Here's another excellent article

http://911depository.info/PDFs/Othe...nc - World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf

 

[triforcharity]

Here's another excellent article

http://911depository.info/PDFs/Othe...nc - World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf

I'm looking at that as we speak, but thanks for bumping it.

C7, Are you going to contact ProTec and ask them what they found at Fresh Kills and GZ?

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT="]NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue.[/FONT][/B][/SIZE]
[FONT="]NIST reply to stj911truth[/FONT]
[FONT="][URL]http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf[/URL][/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
[/quote]
[QUOTE="triforcharity, post: 6184291, member: 32956"]NIST aparently didn't need to, as ProTec had already done so.

Source?

 

[Christopher7]

I'm looking at that as we speak, but thanks for bumping it.

C7, Are you going to contact ProTec and ask them what they found at Fresh Kills and GZ?

You contact and ask if you want to.

I have read all the articles and the "forensic" search was for human remains.

Show the quote where it says some qualified persons tested for explosives or cut the tap dance around the FACT that no one did.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

No, you can't.

Seismic records have already eliminated the possibility of explosives.

 

[Cuddles]

Several posts have been removed to AAH. Remain on topic, remain civil and avoid making personal attacks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Java Man]

Huh? The mind boggles!

NIST's not finding samples that reached more than temp X leads them to not supposing any did, or at least to not using that supposition to proof anything.

You propose the exact opposite: Take the lack of evidence for explosives as proof that there were explosives! Simply because of sample size.


So, if I search for diamonds in my underwear drawer, and nowhere else in my apartment, does the small sample size mean there are diamonds in my apartment? If so, you get half of them, but you must promise to buy all of us a beer!

You're probably a very rich man according to NIST, I'll quote it again:

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".

In layman's terms they say: we can NOT say "NO column reached over 250º" so we'll say they did.

To your diamond analogy:
"it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the the apartment's remaining area has diamonds".

So if you can't extrapolate that no other area has diamonds then you think there could be diamonds. NIST used that to include temperatures in excess of 250º in their models and declined to adjust the model as requested. A bit like you going off and buying an expensive car thinking you have diamonds in your house to pay for it. You just haven't found them yet, but due to the small sample size your drawer represents you're confident there are diamonds somewhere else even if you haven't found them yet. Simple because it is not possible for you to extrapolate from the small sample size that none of the apartment's remaining area has diamonds.

 

[Java Man]

What does this have to do with the eutectic? Is the topic too technical for you hearsay and lies to handle?

Show me an eutectic system with concrete. The point of a eutectic system here as far as I understand it is a means to lower the melting point of steel. But if steel is covered by concrete it's going to be very hard for the element making the eutectic system to reach the steel unless you take the cement away.

Thus the relevance of my questioning. Particularly since the videos we've been seeing about CDs are on reinforced concrete structures.

 

[Java Man]

No, you can't.

Seismic records have already eliminated the possibility of explosives.

Actually according to NIST seismic records ares so poor in quality they can't even help in determining the time it took the buildings to collapse.

Now I've heard people here claim that the concrete floor slabs (110 of them per building) were blown to pieces and that accounts for the dust cloud. And that was done solely by the fall. That no explosives were needed, the huge energy of the fall was enough. And that didn't show up on seismic records? So if there is enough energy in the fall to do what explosives could do, thus eliminating the need for explosives to account for that destruction, what hope is there for the seismographs to pick up on the explosions if they couldn't pick up on the floor's destructions?

 

[RedIbis]

You're probably a very rich man according to NIST, I'll quote it again:

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".

In layman's terms they say: we can NOT say "NO column reached over 250º" so we'll say they did.

To your diamond analogy:
"it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the the apartment's remaining area has diamonds".

So if you can't extrapolate that no other area has diamonds then you think there could be diamonds. NIST used that to include temperatures in excess of 250º in their models and declined to adjust the model as requested. A bit like you going off and buying an expensive car thinking you have diamonds in your house to pay for it. You just haven't found them yet, but due to the small sample size your drawer represents you're confident there are diamonds somewhere else even if you haven't found them yet. Simple because it is not possible for you to extrapolate from the small sample size that none of the apartment's remaining area has diamonds.

Well said. This is exactly what NIST was doing. It's sort of Rumsfeldian logic, "we know Sadam is hiding WMDs since we haven't found them yet."

 

[Grizzly Bear]

To your diamond analogy:
"it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the the apartment's remaining area has diamonds".

You'll forgive me if I find your version of the "analogy" irrelevant. We have plenty of statistical data on both other building fires, and the ignition temperatures of all the fuels contained within the buildings that establish a baseline temperature for the fires. Even if the samples retrieved did not exceed 250oC there is no justification to assume it means the fires weren't "hot." Determining the temperatures reached by the fires goes far beyond simply measuring via paint spalling, and you know full well that the NIST analysis does not stop simply with examining the physical samples it had retrieved.

 

[uke2se]

You'll forgive me if I find your version of the "analogy" irrelevant. We have plenty of statistical data on both other building fires, and the ignition temperatures of all the fuels contained within the buildings that establish a baseline temperature for the fires. Even if the samples retrieved did not exceed 250oC there is no justification to assume it means the fires weren't "hot." Determining the temperatures reached by the fires goes far beyond simply measuring via paint spalling, and you know full well that the NIST analysis does not stop simply with examining the physical samples it had retrieved.

He doesn't care about that, Grizzly. He's a truther. Truth doesn't matter to him.
Data mining the NIST report is all he's got.

 

[phunk]

Now I've heard people here claim that the concrete floor slabs (110 of them per building) were blown to pieces and that accounts for the dust cloud.

Who did you see making that claim? The dust was mostly things other than concrete, like crushed ceiling tiles.