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 exponent
Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
Do you really think those NIST guys were gonna report any damning evidence against the expected outcome?
Do you really think there was an 'expected outcome'?
Can you name someone who left NIST during this period, and who does not support a 'damage + fire = collapse' hypothesis please?
Originally posted by bsbray11
And to repeat, even if you knew the temperatures present, you still wouldn't know what to do with them.
The theory being tested was not well-defined enough to know at what temperature this reaction would supposedly occur. The whole idea that you could cause this reaction this way is complete speculation.
I've seen who worked on that report and this is a complete mis-characterization. There were a handful of editors who had ultimate say in what was presented, such as John Gross. You know most people who did any work on that report only made petty contributions, not far removed from a team of people working to publish a book but only 1 person writing it. To suggest hundreds of scientists got to have actual equal say and input on the reporting findings is very misleading.
If you want to see realistic temperatures that steel will reach in these kinds of fires, look up the Cardington tests. There, information for you to research if you really want to.
Sounds like a perfect match to the theory being tested. Which again, you "debunkers" came up with, without ever testing, in the first place.
Have you come up with a more exact theory yet?
They STARTED with the hypothesis that fires and planes brought down the towers, and did their entire investigation from there.
Did they ever test for explosives residues of any kind, at any point? NO, by their own admission. Why? Because they had already decided that never happened, before they even investigated the collapses. Neither did FEMA consider anything else.
There was a former NIST fire science division chief who thought their WTC report was unverified junk (which it obviously was) and he voiced his dissent publicly. James Quintiere. He endorsed a person theory of his instead, but more importantly agreed that a better investigation was needed.
Originally posted by GlennCanady
NIST lied about 911 because that was their job. They said fires caused the collapse and we know that the fires could never make the steel hot enough to collapse. In fact, the firefighters said there was so much molten steel running down the girder channels that it looked like a foundry in there! Where did the molten steel come from?
There is a LOT of evidence that micro nukes were used. Here's the evidence. Don't listen to anybody that says "it's impossible" because it is possible. Look at the evidence yourself!
Originally posted by exponent
To avoid repetition, I will make this answer very simple.
Originally posted by bsbray11
And to repeat, even if you knew the temperatures present, you still wouldn't know what to do with them.
Both FEMA and NISTs results contain information on temperature. Why wouldn't we be able to compare them?
The theory being tested was not well-defined enough to know at what temperature this reaction would supposedly occur. The whole idea that you could cause this reaction this way is complete speculation.
Perhaps you should spend more time reading the reports and less time defending backyard bonfires as unassailable science.
I've seen who worked on that report and this is a complete mis-characterization. There were a handful of editors who had ultimate say in what was presented, such as John Gross. You know most people who did any work on that report only made petty contributions, not far removed from a team of people working to publish a book but only 1 person writing it. To suggest hundreds of scientists got to have actual equal say and input on the reporting findings is very misleading.
This means nothing. You claim that I said some sort of 'equal say and input' which I did not.
If the editors of the NIST report changed the conclusions of the engineers, then they would speak up.
If you want to see realistic temperatures that steel will reach in these kinds of fires, look up the Cardington tests. There, information for you to research if you really want to.
Oh wait so now the NIST tests of offices aren't acceptable either are they? Boy you just keep digging this hole of yours deeper and deeper.
Sounds like a perfect match to the theory being tested. Which again, you "debunkers" came up with, without ever testing, in the first place.
Yeah it's totally our fault that this guy had a terrible attempt at an experiment. I mean if only we would have pointed him to a report that details the chemical reactions involved.
Have you come up with a more exact theory yet?
Oh I can easily get much more exact than that experiment. Hell I'm not a chemist but I am convinced a high school student could design a better experiment. Every one I know can.
They STARTED with the hypothesis that fires and planes brought down the towers, and did their entire investigation from there.
Did they ever test for explosives residues of any kind, at any point? NO, by their own admission. Why? Because they had already decided that never happened, before they even investigated the collapses. Neither did FEMA consider anything else.
That's not what NIST admitted, and of course you have no evidence for this. Weren't you having a go at me for speculation just a page ago?
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
So someone who didn't work there at the time, and who doesn't agree with controlled demolition. Not very convincing evidence that NIST scientists knew something was wrong eh?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Repeating yourself endlessly is not what I am looking for, just so you know. I am going to end up repeating myself in every post too and we will just keep re-iterating our differences ad infinitum.
They don't describe the temperatures required for the reaction itself to occur. That is why the data would be meaningless for testing this theory. FEMA explicitly says they don't know what caused it, they only talk about the maximum temperature that the section reached.
This is a cop-out response and has nothing to do with FEMA's lack of a well-defined theory, and everyone else's lack of a well-defined theory. Why don't you want to acknowledge the fact that the "drywall melted the steel" theory isn't a legitimate scientific theory to begin with?
Then what does it matter if "hundreds of scientists" worked on the report if in reality most of them did trivial work on it anyway?
You're the one digging your own grave. The tests you are thinking of, NIST called calibrations for their computer simulations, and they did NOT verify NIST's hypothesis in the least. They contradicted it by the fact that their mechanism didn't present itself at all, despite them using megawatt burners and achieving high temperatures in the steel. Want to go back and dig up the specifics yourself and lay them out here so we can see?
Exactly. You are being sarcastic but that's exactly what should have happened. But no legitimate theory even exists. So all he had to test, was garbage. That's his fault? No, that's exactly what he MEANT to demonstrate to you
Glad to hear that. Then it should be cake for you to do it yourself and make the drywall melt holes in the steel.
NIST didn't admit they didn't test for explosives, and I have no evidence for this?
It isn't a question of whether or not "NIST scientists knew something was wrong." It's a matter of what their reports showed, ie the actual science. Which is non-existent.
Originally posted by exponent
We will not end up with a constant repetition because I am capable of seeing you are not interested in being convinced.
They don't describe the temperatures required for the reaction itself to occur. That is why the data would be meaningless for testing this theory. FEMA explicitly says they don't know what caused it, they only talk about the maximum temperature that the section reached.
This does not make proper experimentation impossible. Science would have no purpose if we already knew every variable before we tested them.
This is a cop-out response and has nothing to do with FEMA's lack of a well-defined theory, and everyone else's lack of a well-defined theory. Why don't you want to acknowledge the fact that the "drywall melted the steel" theory isn't a legitimate scientific theory to begin with?
The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.
and did not spatter or show any evidence
A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.
is not a particularly convincing theory either.
It's not like controlled demolition is the theory we revert to if we haven't got any other, it's something you have to prove. I don't see how this is so hard to understand.
Then what does it matter if "hundreds of scientists" worked on the report if in reality most of them did trivial work on it anyway?
Have you even read the report? Large sections were dedicated to outside engineering firms, but of course I guess all of these people were magically paid off too.
Want to go back and dig up the specifics yourself and lay them out here so we can see?
I don't need to. I know that you have read them, we both know that I have answered these questions in the past, explained how you were wrong and detailed the simulation process to you.
Exactly. You are being sarcastic but that's exactly what should have happened. But no legitimate theory even exists. So all he had to test, was garbage. That's his fault? No, that's exactly what he MEANT to demonstrate to you
Oh yes of course, I mean what does anyone like better than wasting two days and a lot of firewood on a worthless experiment, and then uploading it to youtube as a serious one. Yes this is a completely convincing explanation, not an attempt at backtracking at all.
Glad to hear that. Then it should be cake for you to do it yourself and make the drywall melt holes in the steel.
Sure, I'll be expecting you to deliver the bobcat and firewood then, wanna set a date?
NIST didn't admit they didn't test for explosives, and I have no evidence for this?
You have no evidence of a predetermined conclusion
It isn't a question of whether or not "NIST scientists knew something was wrong." It's a matter of what their reports showed, ie the actual science. Which is non-existent.
I leave the above statement here purely for irony.
Originally posted by exponent
Steel certainly could have gotten red / yellow hot, but it's pretty unlikely it completely melted
and we don't have any beams that are partially melted as far as I know.
I don't remember the huge clouds of evaporated steel on that day, perhaps you do.
Originally posted by bsbray11
I am not interested in being convinced of the nonsense you've been posting, right.
It still requires additional steps before conducting the experiment you want to see. You still have to come up with a more defined theory as to how this melting occurred.
The beam in FEMA appendix C was melted even by FEMA's own admission.
If there were no evidence of thermite then the above excerpt from FEMA would not exist.
A mixture of thermite and sulfur produces thermate which lowers the melting point of the iron it contacts when reacting by forming a eutectic system. This is useful in cutting through steel.
en.wikipedia.org...
You must be telling me you see absolutely no relation between these two pieces of data if you think there is no evidence of this.
Compared to the government reports it's a hell of a lot more convincing.
It's not hard to understand, but just because controlled demolition hasn't been proven down to every detail, what exactly was placed, where it was placed, when it was detonated or ignited, etc., etc., doesn't mean there aren't other indications already that point exactly in this direction. There are thousands of them, that you are already trained to dismiss out of hand with various unproven assertions ("who knows what those explosions were," "who knows what melted the steel," "who knows where the dust came from in those ejections during the Tower collapses"), and have never considered collectively, no doubt. You have to put it all together and look at the big picture for consideration, if you are at all able. I have looked at both sides like this and only one of them actually makes sense and fits with the majority of the data. WTC7 itself is the biggest smoking gun for this. You can't have a "progressive collapse" and accelerate at free-fall at the same time. Those columns were completely and totally destroyed before that building began free-falling into itself.
Yes, I'm aware of the outsourcing. They outsourced to the same people that investigated the 1993 bombing and Oklahoma City too if I recall correctly. Let's just put it this way: The Nazis never outsourced their propaganda work to the Americans, did they?
Now you're lying again. You know NIST never validated their hypothesis and recreated their alleged mechanism physically. That is un-accept-able. That is not science. You have NEVER explained why I am "wrong" about this because there is nothing to be wrong about it.
Again, all he was showing was how incompetent you "debunkers" are when you make up these off-the-cuff excuses with no scientific merit whatsoever.
Oh and now the goalposts shift after I show you NIST themselves admitting they never looked.
Their pre-determined conclusion is self-obvious from the fact that they never investigated anything else, never had any interest in investigating anything else, and said as much themselves.
And I remind you that you still haven't shown me where they ever tested their main hypothesis, the main point of their entire investigation. Because we both know they never did. And you, an "analyst," think this is science apparently.
Ironic is right. Actually more like depressing.
No, it's impossible for it to have melted from those fires alone.
This paper actually concludes that while the tiny iron spheres are there, and do indicate that there were tons of this material in the dust, and that they must have formed from being melted, it's less likely that they are part of some thermite reaction and more likely part of some unknown mechanism that nonetheless resulted in the melting and dispersal of tons of steel/iron.
Thermate may be more effective at cutting through steel, but that does not change the mechanism it uses, which is an extremely high temperature attack. Evidence of which was not found by FEMA or NIST. What is the lowest reaction temperature you can find for a thermate mix?
Compared to the government reports it's a hell of a lot more convincing.
When you claim that a satirical theory is more convincing than years of research and experimentation then it is hard to take you seriously.
If those columns were so destroyed, why did the acceleration take a while to reach free fall?
Anyway this whole paragraph can essentially be boiled down to 'There's no good evidence for individual bits but I'm so suspicious that the suggestion of evidence is enough to convince me'.
I apologise if this is insulting, but this is my interpretation of that paragraph.
Science is not done by aggregating suspicion, if you can't provide a unified theory (it doesn't have to fill every last detail, just any of the major details) then you can't claim to have a more reliable theory.
Haha impressive, Godwin's and FUD in the same paragraph. I guess you have realised that it's pretty hard to pay off every member of a private company and keep them quiet!
I know that NIST never validated their experiments to your satisfaction
but you've yet to even present the experiment they should have used
Again, all he was showing was how incompetent you "debunkers" are when you make up these off-the-cuff excuses with no scientific merit whatsoever.
In that case the video is especially ironic.
Oh and now the goalposts shift after I show you NIST themselves admitting they never looked.
For fun, lets see if you can find and post why NIST didn't test. They do explain it
Their pre-determined conclusion is self-obvious from the fact that they never investigated anything else, never had any interest in investigating anything else, and said as much themselves.
So if anyone investigating starts with the most likely theory according to available evidence, then that's proof they started with no intent to ever consider alternative theories?
And I remind you that you still haven't shown me where they ever tested their main hypothesis, the main point of their entire investigation. Because we both know they never did. And you, an "analyst," think this is science apparently.
Ironic is right. Actually more like depressing.
Depressing indeed, as you still have not managed to accept that calibration tests exist to calibrate models, not to try and demonstrate theories which probably had not even been fully developed by that point.
Believing they already had their answers is circular logic, as they required these tests to produce the theory.
Oh dear, so your theory that is apparently quite convincing apparently doesn't even have a basic mechanism.
As far as I know (I am not confident in this) the most likely source of these iron microspheres is the concrete, which is partially composed of ash which contains these microspheres. That may have been debunked though, I have been out of touch for a while.
Originally posted by bsbray11
FEMA notes that the steel had only been exposed to about 1000 C, which they describe as significantly lower than what would be expected to melt that steel. The point is to destroy the steel before it is to achieve a high temperature. The steel was destroyed for any structural purpose.
"Years of research and experimentation"? By who, again?..
Either way the free-fall acceleration period is equally damning, regardless of what was before and after it. It's the instantaneous values during that period that prove no work was being done during the same period, and therefore no "progressive collapse."
It's not just a "suggestion of evidence" when we can offer one theory, say, for explosions, that they were caused by some kind of explosive or bomb, and those explosions are immediately direct evidence for that, but then someone comes back with "it must have been something else causing those explosions" with no other credible alternative to offer. I've seen transformer excuses and people hitting the ground and the rest and they just don't add up when you look at all the evidence of explosions. Same with the violent ejections of debris during the collapses, WTC7's free-fall acceleration, all of those little things that are direct evidence of demolition and not direct evidence of any other possibility.
No, actually I was thinking "oh, great..." when you said you'd been drinking, but I actually think your tone is more pleasant and reasonable in this post ironically enough. You've got me curious. Beer? Wine? Let's see, you're in the UK... New Castle?
I explained above why in my view demolition theory does explain all these details much better than NIST's theory does. NIST ignores the explosions completely and only offers and off-the-cuff explanation of the explosive ejections, not acknowledging the solid dust and debris that came out with the air, and didn't offer any reconciliation at all for how WTC7 could have been doing work while simultaneously accelerating at free-fall.
The last emotion I feel towards all of this is fear, and it's a historical fact that the Nazis were able to do what they did very successfully on a very large scale despite their own public, and despite Godwin's musings. You know we actually brought over Nazi propagandists after WW2, and their rocket scientists too, and employed them. I only wish I were making this stuff up.
As soon as they did this "calibration test" and realizing there was no pulling the perimeter columns inward when the truss became heated, I would imagine that's when they determined they would never embarrass themselves by trying to test their hypothesis. Nothing like creating a hypothesis only to test it and find it dead wrong.
Are you saying it would have been impossible to recreate NIST's hypothesis with a single truss and perimeter column section?
I take that as a back-handed way of admitting the theory being tested wasn't even worth testing in the first place. I agree. Many JREF'ers probably wouldn't have, and still don't.
Because a dog ate their homework?
That's not an excuse for never testing them. Why didn't the trusses sag and pull the perimeter columns inward during their calibration? Doesn't that say something?
That doesn't sound very much better than the paper you just criticized.