It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dereks
Originally posted by projectnsearch
The micro nuke theory is the best by far.
Just when you thought you had heard all the silly conspiracy theories about 911, someone comes up with an even sillier one. Now we have silent hush a boom micro nukes, that produce zero radiation, zero thermal effect, zero seismic signature, zero noise and no onenoticed them going off!
Originally posted by bsbray11
So I was looking over this thread and I noticed something was completely missing.
A "debunking."
Does this mean all the resident "debunkers" here now accept the FACT that their "the drywall caused the corrosion" theory was proven wrong?
Or are they still trying to come up with a new version to replace the one tested in the OP?
Originally posted by exponent
Neither, I watched this video again on your request and found it was the same one as I had seen before. This is not an experiment and it's easy to see where potential problems occur. At the conclusion of the burn, the narrator mentions that some chunks of unmelted aluminium still exists.
In an experiment, you set out your test case beforehand, and the expected procedure and conclusion. You use instruments to determine if your experiment succeded and whether your procedure is producing the expected effects.
I hope this is satisfactory as a response, as this is about the best you are probably going to get
Originally posted by bsbray11
You can't generalize temperatures for the whole pile just because of what is found in one location in it. Because of the size of pile and its materials, it's more than just possible that areas were more insulated from the flame than others, it's proven by the fact that most of the aluminum was melted.
And what would it matter anyway? What is the critical difference between this environment and Ground Zero, that one would allegedly produce molten steel naturally while the experiment shows nothing of the sort happened?
There was aluminum, drywall, all the raw materials that would have been present at Ground Zero that according to "debunkers" caused a eutectic reaction of molten iron to spontaneously take place.
That's exactly what he did. And btw you don't have to guess what's going to happen. That is part of forming a hypothesis, which is helpful in coming up with a theory, but in this case the theories already existed and were simply being put to the test.
The procedure was demonstrated in the video as were the results, which are measurable with your eyeballs when you look at the steel and compare. Very basic stuff.
What you are arguing is that it has to be dressed up in a fancy suit to be science, that you have to have fancy equipment and a lab and all of that I suppose. Not so. Everything is there: theories to be tested, procedure that is shown, results which are shown, and everything is laid out so that you can reproduce it all yourself and see if you can come up with something different.
I know, and it was a good try.
And this is why no one cares what you think the "truth movement" should do on the other thread. As soon as the opportunity presents itself, you automatically go into discredit and deny mode.
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by bsbray11
And what would it matter anyway? What is the critical difference between this environment and Ground Zero, that one would allegedly produce molten steel naturally while the experiment shows nothing of the sort happened?
That's the very point I'm trying to illustrate. We cannot tell what the differences were for two reasons:
- There was no instrumentation of the test, so we do not know what temperatures were reached, if the gypsum did degrade into sulfur etc.
- The established procedure for causing this damage has not been ascertained, so even if the test were instrumented we couldn't compare it with these conditions.
This statement contradicts itself. He did not instrument the test, and as you say he is trying to test a theory, not develop a hypothesis. For theory testing you must have expectations of the experiment more specific than 'some steel will get holes in it'
A visual inspection is not a convincing analysis when we are discussing sulfur causing intragranular melting.
You need to remove steel samples and study them under a microscope to determine if sulfur has formed and if it has intruded into the metal.
I'm sorry but backyard science is called backyard science for a reason. I appreciate that you would very much like this to be convincing proof, but it is as I said, nothing more than a demonstration to reinforce the beliefs of the already convinced.
Originally posted by bsbray11
These are problems with the theory being tested, not the experiment itself.
Remember he did this to test a theory you "debunkers" are always espousing, that the melted steel FEMA found came from the rubble piles. And then they say the sulfur came from drywall that was broken down from being wet, attached itself to the steel somehow, and then somehow managed to melt iron, etc. etc.
What has been ascertained, is that the theory most often given by "debunkers" is at best unrealistically simplistic, at worst outright wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree.
Also I was wondering, where do you think all the extreme temperatures in the rubble pile came from in the first place? What caused those fires to be so much hotter than the most efficient open-atmosphere fires?
And keep in mind clean-up worker testimony that fires underneath the pile were oxygen-starved and would not flame up until they were exposed to oxygen.
This is complete nonsense. The man who did all of this could have said anything he pleased before doing what he did, and the outcome would have been exactly the same.
Inter-granular melting that was readily visible in the surface of the steel FEMA analyzed. FEMA says this themselves. There is no visual match whatsoever between the I-beam that comes out of this test, and what FEMA analyzed.
He took an I-beam. He covered it in drywall chunks, drywall dust, soaked with rain water so it had time to break down, he added aluminum, he wrapped it all around the I-beam with wire, and he burned it for days. It didn't turn the I-beam into swiss cheese. That's case closed on a ridiculous theory that never had any evidence going for it in the first place, it was just something internet "debunkers" came up with to cover their asses.
Originally posted by exponent
This is a problem with both the theory and the experiment. The theory is not developed significantly enough to allow trivial testing, and this person's testing was so trivial it produced no usable results.
I don't see how you can deny this as if no area of the steel exceeded 700C then no melting would have occured.
What has been ascertained, is that the theory most often given by "debunkers" is at best unrealistically simplistic, at worst outright wrong and completely barking up the wrong tree.
Well I agree it is simplistic, the actual chemistry involved is quite a bit above my level, but that does not excuse this sort of 'experiment'.
Also I was wondering, where do you think all the extreme temperatures in the rubble pile came from in the first place? What caused those fires to be so much hotter than the most efficient open-atmosphere fires?
The temperatures required were not extreme
but it is irrelevant as we have no information at all for the temperature in this test.
Experimental results are not 'saying anything you please'.
Inter-granular melting that was readily visible in the surface of the steel FEMA analyzed. FEMA says this themselves. There is no visual match whatsoever between the I-beam that comes out of this test, and what FEMA analyzed.
That's true, but again how is this a convincing test when we don't know any of the criteria?
This is a massive straw man. Nobody is stating that any random configuration of these elements will definitely destroy a beam in X amount of hours.
A total of 2 pieces were found with this sort of erosion, out of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of steel components.
All that was done was to burn a lot of wood and claim that it was representative, but with none of the data to actually show it.
Originally posted by bsbray11
If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?
Originally posted by exponent
The majority of the post I am responding to is just a repeat of previous points along with the claim that somehow despite it being not instrumented, it's still valid just to guess at the temperatures involved. You don't accept the educated opinions of hundreds of scientists who worked on the NIST report, but you accept your own speculation about the temperature of the fire, even when you don't know for sure.
You claim certain temperatures are achievable in fires, but you don't supply any information for this, and you haven't investigated NISTs fire tests either apparently.
Originally posted by bsbray11
If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?
It was steel of indeterminate strength, covered in drywall of indeterminate construction, with additional elements added in unspecified ratios. It was heated to an unspecified temperature in an unspecified atmosphere, and maintained at that temperature for an indetermined time.
In no sense was this a scientific experiment, and no amount of 'visual inspection' will tell you the facts we need to know. I'm sorry but that's where I must exit this thread. If you're just going to repeat that no matter how little information we have, it's testing some theory then you are wrong quite plain and simple. The fact that you go on to blame 'debunkers' for not being specific enough is quite hilarious, as since when are debunkers advocating a positive position here?
Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Do you really think those NIST guys were gonna report any damning evidence against the expected outcome?
I don't, there were a few that saw disagreed with the OCT and they soon left because their integrity was in Jeopardy. Some people will man up and refuse to tow the preferred line. Not many though...
Originally posted by exponent
The majority of the post I am responding to is just a repeat of previous points along with the claim that somehow despite it being not instrumented, it's still valid just to guess at the temperatures involved.
You don't accept the educated opinions of hundreds of scientists who worked on the NIST report
but you accept your own speculation about the temperature of the fire, even when you don't know for sure.
You claim certain temperatures are achievable in fires, but you don't supply any information for this
Originally posted by bsbray11
If all he did was burn wood then what was that big piece of steel he wrapped up in all kinds of debris buried underneath the burning pile?
It was steel of indeterminate strength, covered in drywall of indeterminate construction, with additional elements added in unspecified ratios. It was heated to an unspecified temperature in an unspecified atmosphere, and maintained at that temperature for an indetermined time.