Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Java Man]

Wrong again. Read the quote closely and see how it talks about the duration of the collapse, nothing about a specific event - say a large spike from the use of explosives. It can be very reliable for that, though there is not enough information in your quote to prove that.

After all this time, you are still not very good at this.

Seismic sensors basically detect sound waves traveling through the ground. Explosions can create those waves too.

 

[carlitos]

Oh so you're implying that shock waves from explosions don't travel through the ground? So the US was never able to detect USSR nukes going off underground?

Yes, that's what he's implying. Good job.

 

[beachnut]

... And that was done solely by the fall. That no explosives were needed, the huge energy of the fall was enough.

Eutectic is the topic; why can't you post on topic, are your delusions blocking you?

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?

The energy of the fall was recorded on seismic records. Are you trying to spread your lies by asking failed questions?

When will you get on topic? How does the eutectic fit your story of 911. If thermite caused the eutectic where is the iron that would be fused to the piece in question? You showed a thermite reaction, it left iron fused to the computer; where is the iron in this case. Do you have a clue what thread you are posting nonsense in?

 

[Java Man]

Yes, that's what he's implying. Good job.

This is so shocking I want to be very certain.

According to you the US was never able to detect an underground nuke test through seismic activity. Correct?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Actually your post just has lots of text claiming things with no numeric data to back it up.

Still concerned about the viability? I'm ready to give you every bibliographical reference I have in my possession. I hope you're willing to shell out the money for the books, or let alone even an interest in looking into them. Last time I did this for somebody the guy was too lazy to do either-dismissing them in pretty much the same manner you just dismissed what I put here already. I suggest you commit to it before asking me to list them.

why were no beams exposed to those temperatures found?

Quite possibly because the fire was not as extensive where these samples were located. Several of the known samples came from the entry hole created by the planes. The most intense fires were on the opposite side, where all of the plane debris and building contents got mashed together. I look forward to your next objection about "oh how I'm coming up with unsupported crap" though. I quite expect it.

 

[beachnut]

This is so shocking I want to be very certain.

According to you the US was never able to detect an underground nuke test through seismic activity. Correct?

Off topic;
If you want to talk about nukes, start your own thread. Stop being a troll and get on topic.

You might be reported and that will give you days or weeks to do your own research instead of Spamming the thread with off topic tripe.

eutectic - how does it fit your moronic off topic take on 911?

 

[carlitos]

Mein Gott, but this one is thick.

This is so shocking I want to be very certain.

According to you the US was never able to detect an underground nuke test through seismic activity. Correct?

I actually have to put sarcasm tags in to point out how ridiculous your logic is here? Wow. OK, let me highlight the problem.

Here's the quote straight from NIST:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of the seismic record to detect explosions, so why are you using it as such?

You jumped from:

"seismic record can't be used as a reliable indicator of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely"

to something like:

"the seismic record is bad. it might not even have detected explosives if they were there."

At least that's what I think you're assuming. excaza pointed out, correctly, that the highlighted statement above has nothing to do with the ability of the seismic record to detect explosives. When they demo buildings, they typically get seismic readings of those explosions / collapses. Why not look into this yourself, instead of quote-mining NIST and making vague accusations that go nowhere?

 

[phunk]

Exactly, it didn't stop there and went on creating data of its own. And that's the problem. It's ok to make a model that has temperatures over 250°, but then you have to go validate it against real world data. But ups!! Real world data was now part of the hull of a new ship.

Sorry, I see what you're getting to, but without any validation back to the remains it is seriously discredited. Even if it is a good model you still need backing data. Your model should say "there where pockets of 880°C here" (for example) then you'd go and look for pieces that belonged to those pockets and verify the model against it. You can't just assume it because the "sample was too small".

You don't verify the model by looking for the pieces from the hottest point. You verify it by finding pieces from a range of locations that can be properly identified. The ones that reached 880C had the markings burned off of them, they can't be used to verify the model.

 

[phunk]

Oh so you're implying that shock waves from explosions don't travel through the ground? So the US was never able to detect USSR nukes going off underground?

Wow, that's almost exactly the opposite of what I thought he was implying.

 

[Dog Town]

Wow, that's almost exactly the opposite of what I thought he was implying.

That's because while JM was so busy hoping for a "gotcha" moment, he failed to stick the landing, while showering in spectacular failure! Darn funny though!

 

[TSR]

TSR pretty much brought the topic up here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6177265&postcount=170 it was then heavily discussed.

.
Nope.

Nothing there about dust.

Nor in the post I to which was responding.

Nor in the post to which *that* was a response...
.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What happened to the OP of this thread? 'Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction '

Don't we have enough threads arguing about explosions?

 

[Bell]

What happened to the OP of this thread? 'Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction '

Don't we have enough threads arguing about explosions?

We're following the Discovery formula.

explosions = good
more explosions = better
explosions^2 = best

 

[Andy_Ross]

We're following the Discovery formula.

explosions = good
more explosions = better
explosions^2 = best

Mythbusters you mean?

 

[Bell]

Mythbusters you mean?

They are the main contributors yes.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

What happened to the OP of this thread? 'Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction '

Don't we have enough threads arguing about explosions?

Well can't say I tried to get back to it.... redibis totally ignored every request I made to explain what he considered credible in his OP's research. C7 & MM were too busy spamming their "WTC7 was blown up" call outs to notice, while everybody else got caught into the firestorm made by the trolling.

Guess I'll try this again since I haven't done it since page 31:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6173775&postcount=1218

I'm going to bring this up yet again for whenever RI is ready to provide examples from his OP's video that would indicate any level competence beyond a room temperature IQ in design and engineering. Apparently since he sees nothing wrong:



Would you mind picking a point or two that you would be most interested in having a discussion on? <snip> You gave a source can you please advise on a part of this video you're most interested in? If you're concerned about me treating this video as having below room temperature IQ then I'll be more than happy to explain but I want you to pick a topic to start with before I go wasting time on the entire thing.

Where, oh where is our red... ibis.... oh where, oh where has he been? THis is your thread... hello? Calling redibis! a question has been awaiting your response for the last 30 pages!

 

[Java Man]

Off topic;
If you want to talk about nukes, start your own thread. Stop being a troll and get on topic.

You might be reported and that will give you days or weeks to do your own research instead of Spamming the thread with off topic tripe.

eutectic - how does it fit your moronic off topic take on 911?

Why don't you answer the question directly?

We are not talking about nukes. We are talking about explosions and the ability to detect them through seismographs. This came up due to the comparison between CD videos of reinforced concrete vs steel only buildings in WTC. I brought forth the comment that all videos so far were reinforced concrete demolitions and it is hard to have Eutectic reactions against concrete unless you break through it to reach the steel. Steel which is clearly more accessible in steel only constructions. Leading us to believe that less energy and less powerful devices could be needed to cut through steel than through a reinforced concrete pillar.

Ever noticed how reinforced concrete pillars have steel inside them and are solid while steel columns are usually I shaped or if rectangular or circular they are hollow?

 

[uke2se]

Leading us to believe

Got a mouse in your pocket? An imaginary friend?

 

[BigAl]

Why don't you answer the question directly?

We are not talking about nukes. We are talking about explosions and the ability to detect them through seismographs. This came up due to the comparison between CD videos of reinforced concrete vs steel only buildings in WTC. I brought forth the comment that all videos so far were reinforced concrete demolitions and it is hard to have Eutectic reactions against concrete unless you break through it to reach the steel. Steel which is clearly more accessible in steel only constructions. Leading us to believe that less energy and less powerful devices could be needed to cut through steel than through a reinforced concrete pillar.

Ever noticed how reinforced concrete pillars have steel inside them and are solid while steel columns are usually I shaped or if rectangular or circular they are hollow?

Were there any concrete columns in WTC7?

 

[Disbelief]

Wrong again. Read the quote closely and see how it talks about the duration of the collapse, nothing about a specific event - say a large spike from the use of explosives. It can be very reliable for that, though there is not enough information in your quote to prove that.

After all this time, you are still not very good at this.

Seismic sensors basically detect sound waves traveling through the ground. Explosions can create those waves too.

I understand how seismic sensors work, you just lack basic reading comprehension. Please explain to me how seismic sensors would be able to be used to calculate the duration of the collapse. Now, explain to me why these same seismeic sensors did NOT detect explosives if they were used on WTC7.