Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?

[Edx]

He is lying. Think about it. Think how quick jones is to publish the regular crap he spews. We are to believe that some real evidence that might show something unusual and he has been sitting on it all these years.

Please.

TAM

Whether he is lying outright or just exaggerating, I think the fact he hasn't even published this in his own fake journal is very telling.

 

[BigAl]

d

like i posted earlier, i havent seen one experiment done with multiple layers of painted on thermitic material surrounded by a thick layer of blazeshield ( i think it was 2 or 3 inches thick).

It takes about 2 pounds of thermite to melt one pound of steel.

A coat of thermite "paint" would melt steel equal to about half that thickness off the beam it was painted on while barely raising the temperature of the rest of it.

Calculations here.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4477911#post4477911

 

[T.A.M.]

Whether he is lying outright or just exaggerating, I think the fact he hasn't even published this in his own fake journal is very telling.

Bingo. He runs the journal for cripes sakes. He could carry out an experiment linking dog poo to the collapse of the towers and that journal would have it published.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Your attempt to rephrase an irrelevant question was a waste of time. You are wrong on this. You quoted me first. I told you to read it again because you misunderstood it. Deliberately by the looks of it.

Ok, so what did you mean by the following? Feel free to put it into the context you think it belongs in.

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

So that either means that all of the steel was examined by forensic investigators, or not all of the steel was examined by forensic experts. If the latter is what you meant, people will usually use this word 'not' to qualify an absolute.

I'm playing along here, but it's obvious what you're trying to do is avoid the question you're being asked.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

 

[DGM]

Bingo. He runs the journal for cripes sakes. He could carry out an experiment linking dog poo to the collapse of the towers and that journal would have it published.

TAM

Dog poo? Maybe the added wieght of all the bird **** on the roofs......but, dog poo?

 

[funk de fino]

Ok, so what did you mean by the following? Feel free to put it into the context you think it belongs in.

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

So that either means that all of the steel was examined by forensic investigators, or not all of the steel was examined by forensic experts. If the latter is what you meant, people will usually use this word 'not' to qualify an absolute.

I'm playing along here, but it's obvious what you're trying to do is avoid the question you're being asked.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

It's simple enough. Even for you.

 

[DGM]

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I might be confused here but, You do know that the tower steel was uniquely marked as to position in the buildings and WTC 7 steel was not (not with any markings that could be referenced after construction anyway). If I remember correctly that was part of the problem with the WTC 7 investigation. It was next to impossible to determine what member came from what location.

So to answer your question. Yes.

 

[RedIbis]

"As all the steel was examined by forensic investigators"

It's simple enough. Even for you.

Apparently my question was not simple enough for you since you didn't bother answering it.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I can understand why you don't want to answer it.

 

[dafydd]

Apparently my question was not simple enough for you since you didn't bother answering it.

If "all the steel was examined by forensic investigators," were they able to distinguish between WTC 7 steel and twin tower steel?

I can understand why you don't want to answer it.

Even if they couldn't,what difference does it make?

 

[RedIbis]

Even if they couldn't,what difference does it make?

Why assume they couldn't? But worse why assume it wouldn't make any difference studying the steel that came from the bldg that has been called one of the great mysteries of 9/11?

You guys are supposed to be the skeptics that use science for belief. You suck up an implausible collapse hypothesis without even bothering to ask for the physical evidence. Pretty pathetic, really.

 

[DGM]

Why assume they couldn't? But worse why assume it wouldn't make any difference studying the steel that came from the bldg that has been called one of the great mysteries of 9/11?

You guys are supposed to be the skeptics that use science for belief. You suck up an implausible collapse hypothesis without even bothering to ask for the physical evidence. Pretty pathetic, really.

They could tell the difference. Like I said before the WTC steel was marked.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

 

[RedIbis]

They could tell the difference. Like I said before the WTC steel was marked.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Quote, chapter, page number, anything. I don't doubt that they could, but you might see what questions such an answer will raise.

 

[DGM]

Quote, chapter, page number, anything. I don't doubt that they could, but you might see what questions such an answer will raise.

That whole chapter deals with the issue. Page 9 has a list of figures. Figure 3-6 is typical markings. You might want to read the whole thing (its only 112 pages)


ETA: Fig. 3-6 is on page 43 of the PDF.

 

[RedIbis]

That whole chapter deals with the issue. Page 9 has a list of figures. Figure 3-6 is typical markings. You might want to read the whole thing (its only 112 pages)

Please refer to that section, page or passage that discusses the examination of WTC 7 steel and how it was distinguished from tower steel.

 

[DGM]

Please refer to that section, page or passage that discusses the examination of WTC 7 steel and how it was distinguished from tower steel.

That section concerns the identification and markings on the WTC steel NOT WTC 7. If you read the reports (you know research what your arguing about ) you'd know the the steel in WTC 7 was not marked as well. I mentioned this before.

I thought you said you read the reports? Don't be so lazy.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why assume they couldn't? But worse why assume it wouldn't make any difference studying the steel that came from the bldg that has been called one of the great mysteries of 9/11?

NIST NCSTAR1.3B (draft), p.xxv: "No pieces could be unambiguously identified as being from WTC7".

We know that some steel from the WTC7 rubble pile was studied, because the steel that had suffered high temperature corrosion and eutectic melting came from there. However, we also know that there was no way of determining which part of WTC7 any particular member originated from. So, given that the steel's point of origin could not be identified and that it had been seriously corroded in the post-collapse fires, it should be fairly clear to anyone without an agenda that study of the steel from the WTC7 debris pile would be unlikely to yield any useful information on the condition of a specific part of a specific structural element of WTC7 immediately before the collapse.

Should I start rehearsing the simplified, five-year-old-child level explanations now, or wait for RedIbis's next pretence of incomprehension?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

That section concerns the identification and markings on the WTC steel NOT WTC 7. If you read the reports (you know research what your arguing about ) you'd know the the steel in WTC 7 was not marked as well. I mentioned this before.

I thought you said you read the reports? Don't be so lazy.

So you think markings is what a forensic investigator would need to distinguish WTC 7 steel from tower steel?

I did read the chapter so I know exactly what it says about WTC 7 steel and how it would be identified.

 

[DGM]

So you think markings is what a forensic investigator would need to distinguish WTC 7 steel from tower steel?

I did read the chapter so I know exactly what it says about WTC 7 steel and how it would be identified.

After it was moved (to freshkills), Yes. I'm sure the size and make-up of the member would help them also.

Are you saying they couldn't tell the difference?

 

[RedIbis]

However, we also know that there was no way of determining which part of WTC7 any particular member originated from.
Dave

Bolding to highlight how stupid and lazy this so-called "debunking" is.

You suck up their excuses way too easily. You accept this crap merely because you are invested in their unsubstantiated hypotheses.

The entirety of WTC 7 steel did not experience eutectic melting and any second year architecture student with some bldg plans could probably figure out where structural members came from.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The entirety of WTC 7 steel did not experience eutectic melting and any second year architecture student with some bldg plans could probably figure out where structural members came from.

The building plans should be online somewhere. How about you take a look at them, figure out how many unique column compositions there were throughout the building, and determine how many places each of those column compositions was replicated? You seem to think every structural element of WTC7 was tailor-made to suit its specific location, and that there were no common cross-sections between different columns. I suspect this is just the product of your ignorance, but I'd be interested to see you justify your belief that a significant proportion of structural members in the building had unique properties.

Dave