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

[DGM]

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.

Tell you what RedIbis, Why don't you give us an explanation that better fits the events of the day.

 

[DGM]

I'd be interested to see you justify your belief that a significant proportion of structural members in the building had unique properties.

Dave

I would too! I've seen the plans and good luck to RedIbis on this one. Somehow I get the feeling that he will just hand wave this away.

 

[RedIbis]

Tell you what RedIbis, Why don't you give us an explanation that better fits the events of the day.

This is what I've determined is the debunker's last gasp gambit. When a position can no longer be defended, the debunker must shift focus from the initial claim and sidetrack the discussion away from his indefensible position.

 

[DGM]

This is what I've determined is the debunker's last gasp gambit. When a position can no longer be defended, the debunker must shift focus from the initial claim and sidetrack the discussion away from his indefensible position.

I'm simply pointing out that NIST has made a very detailed report and you (and the "truthers") have not. Why is that? Why do you try to "poke holes" but never offer any better explanation?

Bottom lines is, there's no need to defend what has no competition.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is what I've determined is the debunker's last gasp gambit. When a position can no longer be defended, the debunker must shift focus from the initial claim and sidetrack the discussion away from his indefensible position.

So let's get back to your indefensible position, shall we? How many of the structural members of WTC7 were unique in design to a specific location and therefore could possibly have been positively identified in the rubble pile? Or would you like to sidetrack the discussion away from that one now?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

So let's get back to your indefensible position, shall we? How many of the structural members of WTC7 were unique in design to a specific location and therefore could possibly have been positively identified in the rubble pile? Or would you like to sidetrack the discussion away from that one now?

Dave

Wouldn't how they were affected by heat also help determine what location they came from? I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members? Did they recover Column 79?

 

[Edx]

I dont see why this is a relevant question

The corrosion doesnt have anything to do with thermite
Nano thermite wouldn't make any sense
Explosives wouldn't make any sense.

Until there is a reason to be suspicious then the question is of little significance.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wouldn't how they were affected by heat also help determine what location they came from? I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

Good god, I didn't realise you knew so little about science.

Firstly, thermal expansion is a reversible phenomenon. When something is heated, it expands; when it cools, it contracts back to its original size. There's no such thing as a 'thermally expanded floor member'; thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation. This is really very basic stuff, and your level of ignorance of it is really rather shocking.

Secondly, you're asking for study of the columns to determine the thermal history of the structure, then glibly saying that you can use the known thermal history of the structure to determine which column, and therefore the thermal history of which region, you're trying to determine. Circular Argument: see Argument, Circular.

But the first one is a howler. This is even worse than femr2 not understanding inelastic collisions.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

LOL. RedIbis gets owned yet again.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members?

Wow. You really have no idea how silly this question is, do you?

Scary stupid. You have no business commenting on any of this, you ignorant buffoon.

 

[RedIbis]

Good god, I didn't realise you knew so little about science.

Firstly, thermal expansion is a reversible phenomenon. When something is heated, it expands; when it cools, it contracts back to its original size. There's no such thing as a 'thermally expanded floor member'; thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation. This is really very basic stuff, and your level of ignorance of it is really rather shocking.

Secondly, you're asking for study of the columns to determine the thermal history of the structure, then glibly saying that you can use the known thermal history of the structure to determine which column, and therefore the thermal history of which region, you're trying to determine. Circular Argument: see Argument, Circular.

But the first one is a howler. This is even worse than femr2 not understanding inelastic collisions.

Dave

I'm sure your cheerleaders can't wait to put their skirts on, but what is truly stupid is that you accept this unprecedented phenomena and don't even expect there to be any discernible physical evidence.

You swallow it whole, accept these conclusions and then berate anyone who dares ask for evidence of such occurences. And this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

 

[RedIbis]

Wow. You really have no idea how silly this question is, do you?

Scary stupid. You have no business commenting on any of this, you ignorant buffoon.

What's very stupid is that you don't think there would be any discernible evidence of these occurences.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Firstly, thermal expansion is a reversible phenomenon. When something is heated, it expands; when it cools, it contracts back to its original size. There's no such thing as a 'thermally expanded floor member'; thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation. This is really very basic stuff, and your level of ignorance of it is really rather shocking.

Slight digression here: If NIST had actually kept pieces from WTC 7, do we think it might have been possible to identify failures that could have been due to thermal expansion via their effects on connection points? I'd guess you'd see deformations consistent with the stress they'd put on bolt holes, bolts, rivets, welds, etc. And didn't they actually identify creep on the steel from the main towers from similar deformations? I need to look over those sections of the NIST report again.

Now I admit, I'm no engineer. And furthermore, I'm hard pressed to explain how to differentiate between distortions caused by thermal expansion and distortions caused by actual mechanical force, not to mention the fact that there was almost certainly combinations of both occuring at the same time on many, many of the structural elements in the building. But, I'd guess that in principle some determination could be made that a certain deformation would have some probability of having been a result of thermal effects. Therefore, I'm throwing this out there as bait to hopefully turn the conversation towards something moderately productive.

 

[funk de fino]

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.

This is pure irony from the person who has run from many questions I have asked you in recent times. The fact you cannot see your own utter hypocrisy is noted.

As far as my point is concerned. They inspected all the steel and put aside any strange pieces. The fact there was only two of these pieces put aside should tell you something. The fact one was from the WTC tower and one was from WTC7 should also tell you something.

 

[funk de fino]

I'm sure your cheerleaders can't wait to put their skirts on, but what is truly stupid is that you accept this unprecedented phenomena and don't even expect there to be any discernible physical evidence.

You swallow it whole, accept these conclusions and then berate anyone who dares ask for evidence of such occurences. And this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

You are the only person who thinks this is unprecedented. To the rest of us it is science. The only thing "unprecedented" was the temps it happened at and NIST exlained that. The fact you have not read the report leads you to miss that. Along with the exact failure mode. This has been another fail thread to add your many.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm sure your cheerleaders can't wait to put their skirts on, but what is truly stupid is that you accept this unprecedented phenomena and don't even expect there to be any discernible physical evidence.

You swallow it whole, accept these conclusions and then berate anyone who dares ask for evidence of such occurences. And this is supposed to be a skeptic's forum.

I'm beginning, at last, to understand the sheer depth of ignorance from which these pronouncements of yours emanate. I think you believe that, because something is difficult for you to understand, it must be nigh-on impossible for anyone else to understand. I can see why thermal expansion might be an incomprehensible load of mumbo-jumbo to you, because you have simply not the faintest idea what it is. For those who understand it, have even actually measured it, it's much less of a mystery. Any material must expand when heated, and we know to a very high precision exactly how much common materials will expand. But to you, it's just another uncharted land in the vast expanse of ignorance that surrounds you; and if you don't understand it, why should you believe that anybody else does?

Now I've got over the initial shock, you have my deepest sympathies. The level of ignorance under which you appear to operate is almost at the level of a mental handicap. I'm impressed that you manage to function at all, and not in the least surprised that in this particular area you function so poorly.

We have actually tried, over the last few years to my knowledge and possibly before, to remedy your ignorance by explaining some very basic concepts to you. It's a little difficult, though, because you refuse to accept that anyone knows anything you don't, and respond with angry denial to any attempts at education. And that's your tragedy; the nature of your inability prevents you from overcoming it. A classic case of the Dunning-Kroeger effect in action. So however sorry I am for you, there seems to be very little I can do about it. Maybe some day you'll come to understand how desperately you need help.

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members, you might also be able to determine what location in the bldg they came from.

I am just repeating this for posterity as the stupidest imagine he has ever made.

 

[RedIbis]

But, I'd guess that in principle some determination could be made that a certain deformation would have some probability of having been a result of thermal effects.

No chance at all. Didn't you read what Dave said? Apparently, scientists have no way of determining if thermal expansion occurred, where it occurred or how it contributed to the collapse.

ETA: And since there is no way to study this, it's a perfectly reasonable claim on which to premise an entire collapse hypothesis.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No chance at all. Didn't you read what Dave said? Apparently, scientists have no way of determining if thermal expansion occurred, where it occurred or how it contributed to the collapse.

RedIbis, when you don't understand a language, it's a good idea to stop shouting in it. All you're doing is exhibiting your ignorance more widely.

If steel was strained beyond its elastic limit, permanent deformation would be visible. This might be due to thermal expansion, or it might be due to some other deformation of the structure as a result of, for example, the total collapse of that structure, characterised by multiple impacts between different parts of the structure. It would be very difficult, at best, and quite likely impossible, to determine exactly which was responsible. That's not to say that no thermal deformation could be observed. Creep would be clearly discernible; but creep is not thermal expansion.

Pure thermal expansion, by definition, cannot be detected in the history of an object. Plastic deformation as a result of thermal expansion can, but that isn't thermal expansion.

ETA: And, of course, it's perfectly trivial to know precisely how much an object expanded thermally, if we know the history of its temperature. Therefore, if we have a model that tells us that temperature history, we know the exact amount of thermal expansion experienced by the object at any time. Unless, of course, we reject our understanding of the laws of physics entirely and rely only on direct measurements, which seems to be the limitation RedIbis wants to impose.

And we're still left with my second point: you need a description of the thermal history of the structure, in order to identify specific elements, in order to obtain a description of the thermal history of the structure. The big advantage of thermal modelling is that it permits the determination of the thermal history without having to know it in advance.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

RedIbis, when you don't understand a language, it's a good idea to stop shouting in it. All you're doing is exhibiting your ignorance more widely.

If steel was strained beyond its elastic limit, permanent deformation would be visible. This might be due to thermal expansion, or it might be due to some other deformation of the structure as a result of, for example, the total collapse of that structure, characterised by multiple impacts between different parts of the structure. It would be very difficult, at best, and quite likely impossible, to determine exactly which was responsible. That's not to say that no thermal deformation could be observed. Creep would be clearly discernible; but creep is not thermal expansion.

Pure thermal expansion, by definition, cannot be detected in the history of an object. Plastic deformation as a result of thermal expansion can, but that isn't thermal expansion.

And we're still left with my second point: you need a description of the thermal history of the structure, in order to identify specific elements, in order to obtain a description of the thermal history of the structure. The big advantage of thermal modelling is that it permits the determination of the thermal history without having to know it in advance.

Dave

Not only are you backtracking, you're totally contradicting yourself. I think you realize how silly you sound.