1667 replies to this topic

[flyingswan]

Q24, on 14 February 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

And after five years you still show hopeless incomprehension of such a simple argument that we have been over in excruciating detail.  Honestly, I don't think anyone can be that stupid.  I think you are just trying to blag your way through and deliberately confuse the issue – I'm sure you take some sort of pleasure from it.

Usual insult to make up for lack of argument.

Quote

When I say "not within the bounds of reality" it is not even an argument reliant on probabilities as you seem to think.  It is simply a note that the damage sustained in NIST's severe case model was greater than the damage seen in reality on 9/11.  It's as simple as that.  Once the simulated level of damage exceeded the actual damage on 9/11, then the simulation becomes the realm of fantasy, not a reality of 9/11.  How do you fail to grasp such a simple argument over and over?

The most important damage, that to the core structure, isn't observable, all there is to go on is the NIST calculations and the exterior damage.  You are claiming to know the actual damage, but you don't acknowledge this uncertainty.

Quote

As for the rest, it's not my problem that you are hopeless or deliberately feigning ignorance of probability theory.  It is not the individual variables or their parameters that are a problem or provide a great swing in probability.  No.  It is when we adjust seven, eight, or nine variables all at once, specifically in one direction to favour collapse, that the probability begins that march toward astronomical.  It's like tossing a straight seven, eight or nine heads in a row on a coin... but I know you could not even grasp the probabilities involved at that basic level.

When you yourself say that all the variations are in one direction, that is they can all be modelled by a change in one parameter which in this case is aircraft velocity, you effectively admit that there is a single range of probability, not a lot of separate ranges where probabilities can be multiplied.

Quote

Ah well, I don't think there will be any spark of comprehension in you at this stage, not from someone who has a personal preference against the conclusion.  At least I had you admit that NIST demonstrated each tower was more likely to remain standing than to collapse.  I'll accept that's as far as I'm going to get with you, take that victory and leave it there.

Another insult, another carefully mined quote, another ludicrous claim of victory.

[flyingswan]

skyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

The primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

The NIST tests were on Tnemec primer.  The match is for LaClede primer, that may well have a lower ignition temperature.  However, there's no real evidence that the material that matches LaClede primer in Harrit's XEDS spectra is the same as he used for the ignition tests.  Lots of materials will ignite in air, especially when finely divided.

[Stundie]

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So exactly how are you so sure the temperatures were enough to melt steel?  

Again, this is typical panto debunking behaviour....lol

I do not know what the temperatures were and never claimed to know, but if there was molten steel as witnessed by many people, then the temperatures were hot enough.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Can you answer my question Stundie.

Are eye witness accounts infallible....yes or no?

Of course they are, but just because they can be infallible, doesn't mean there are accounts are.

You need supporting evidence that there accounts are wrong and that evidence has yet to be presented by either you or Skyeagle, who think evidence his is own so called expertise.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Like I stated before, eye witness reports are not infallible, so if you prefer to take them at face value without any supporting evidence, be my guest.

And I've never claimed they were, so if you prefer to NOT take them at face value without any supporting evidence, be my guest, although I will laugh you for using such retarded logic.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Of course Stundie.  Nobody claimed molten aluminium, so obviously that makes it molten steel.  Right.

Yes, because nobody else is claiming the molten metal is anything else, unless you have evidence it is wrong??

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Walk around with a picture of molten aluminium (2nd photograph I posted) and ask 10 random people what it is a picture of.  I can guaruntee you that more than 70% will say molten steel.

But the people at GZ were not looking at pictures, they were actually witnessing it firsthand.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

I have already done this at work, not 1 person stated molten aluminium....do you know why Stundie?  

Cause it wasn't aluminium.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So now you move goal posts Stundie?  Cooled down?  

Moved the goalposts?? lol What do you think the firefighters did, just stand there and watch it glowing forever or put the fires out/cool it down so it could be removed?

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

What those people at GZ claimed they saw was a molten substance, which by all means is not cooled down.

Some describe it as molten metal, some people specify it was molten steel.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Since you were not able to discern the differences of all 3 photographs. I will answer that for you.

1. Molten Glass
2. Molten Aluminium
3. Molten Steel

Well they are photos after all and as I stated, its harder to tell from a photo. If I was actually there, it would be easy to identify because all you would have to do is let some cool down to identify it.

Like those at GZ.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So apperantly occular identification of molten substances is not accurate, is that fair enough?  

Who said they judged it from the occular identification?? lol I never, it is something panto debunkers assume....lol

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So yes, even with an expert, tests would be needed to figure out the make up of a molten substance.

It just needs to be cooled down and it would soon be identifiable, not need to be an expert.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

A non-expert's opinion on what that molten substance is based on visual identification is not infallible.

Good job there was plenty of experts there who were able to identify it.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

So if an expert were to look at a molten substance is he/she able to discern that it's previous form prior to melting was a girder?

He didn't look at some molten substance and work out what it was....whoever said that??

He said he saw the melting of girders, which would mean that there was girders in the process of being melted.

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

I doubt that Stundie.

You have every right to doubt it, but you should be challenging Skyeagles assertion that it was aluminium seeing as there is no evidence for it

RaptorBites, on 13 February 2013 - 08:29 PM, said:

Unless of course, your claim is the expert saw a steel girder melt in front of his/her eyes.  
Which at that point, I would love for you to cite your evidence.

No problems.....

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.pbs.org/n...pass_05-10.html

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

The primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

so therefore, the red chips are not primer paint...but you had previously claimed the red chips harrit et al analysed were primer paint. so once more logic and facts are tripping you up. the other occasion being where you stated robertson never stated molten steel, yet the video I put up proves he did. the third occasion was when you stated in the absolute without evidence that the temperature never reached the melting point of steel, and yet plenty of evidence given to you suggests it did. it would be honest if you at least acknowledged your mistakes, but you won't, you'll ignore it all and just repeat yourself again 10 pages later.

[Little Fish]

flyingswan, on 14 February 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

The NIST tests were on Tnemec primer.  The match is for LaClede primer, that may well have a lower ignition temperature.  However, there's no real evidence that the material that matches LaClede primer in Harrit's XEDS spectra is the same as he used for the ignition tests.  Lots of materials will ignite in air, especially when finely divided.

there is no match for LaClede primer.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 06:31 PM, said:

so therefore, the red chips are not primer paint...

On the contrary, the chips are from primer paint.

Quote

XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) are very much consistent with the the paint formulation of LaClede Standard Primer.

Quote

the other occasion being where you stated robertson never stated molten steel, yet the video I put up proves he did.

Apparently, you didn't read the rest of the story, which was posted. Now, go back to my post and report what I presented in that regard.

Quote

...the third occasion was when you stated in the absolute without evidence that the temperature never reached the melting point of steel,

The infrared mages proved my point. To further my point, there was no molten steel and you might want to check the rest of the story in regards to that so-called molten concrete because it seems that you were unaware of what was sitting next to that object, in which case, you probably would have had second thoughts before you posted that photo.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 08:44 PM.

[skyeagle409]

This is not melted steel.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

On the contrary, the chips are from primer paint.

"XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) are very much consistent with the the paint formulation of LaClede Standard Primer."

finding a single property that is similar does not make two things the same - a daffodil is the same colour as a lemon but they are not the same.

you are claiming that the primer paint reduces its constituent iron oxide to molten iron at 420 celcius, this cannot be be caused by burning "paint", unless of course its some sort of thermitic incendiary paint.

please explain with your declared expertise in metals how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

no doubt you have already forgotten the long list of evidence for extremely high temperatures you have been given, but here is something else to consider:
"Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue"
http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=2

the sfrm fireproofing requires temperatures in excess of 1200 celcius to decompose and further temperature increase to create this glassy residue.

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

finding a single property that is similar does not make two things the same - a daffodil is the same colour as a lemon but they are not the same.

you are claiming that the primer paint reduces its constituent iron oxide to molten iron at 420 celcius, this cannot be be caused by burning "paint", unless of course its some sort of thermitic incendiary paint.

please explain with your declared expertise in metals how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

First of all there was no incendiary paint. Do you see any in the following photos?
















Secondly, are you familiar with exothermic reactions involving iron? Did you know that in some cases, stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires? Did you know that steel wool can also be used to start fires?

Quote

no doubt you have already forgotten the long list of evidence for extremely high temperatures you have been given, but here is something else to consider:
"Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue"
http://www.nytimes.c...ml?pagewanted=2

You mean, glassy residue that can be produced in fires from a number of sources within the WTC buildings, which can combine with crushed concrete and other contents?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 09:57 PM.

[Stundie]

The best way to describe the pantomimes of debunker logic....Imagine a group of people on safari and they witness an incident..

Some describe a big cat catching a gazzelle, some are more specific and say it was a lion that caught the gazelle.

Debunker logic says it was not a lion, but a leopold and that none of them are qualified to say what type of cat it was cause they are not big cat experts.

Here is a question for the panto villans in this debunking play house, just out of curiousity, lets say you are at GZ and you removed some rubble and find some strange molten metal, how do you establish what it is?

A) Just pull a random metal out of the hat and say its metal X?
B )Don't bother trying to identify it, not even asking anyone else and just refer to it as molten metal?
C) Cool it down and examine what metal it is?
D) Just repeat the word aluminium, regardless of what metal it is cause when you look at it, you was in a different world and what other say it was who actually examined it.

Edited by Stundie, 14 February 2013 - 10:17 PM.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 09:55 PM, said:

First of all there was no incendiary paint. Do you see any in the following photos?

so when a pointed question is put to you, you respond with your own questions of no obvious relevance. this is evasive behaviour.

here is the question you evaded:
explain how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

Quote

Secondly, are you familiar with exothermic reactions involving iron? Did you know that in some cases, stored iron can create temperatures high enough to start fires? Did you know that steel wool can also be used to start fires?

more bizarre unrelated questions instead of answers to a pointed question.

explain how to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

in case you don't understand, you claimed the "chips" were primer paint (containing iron-oxide), yet the experiments of Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Basille and others showed the "paint chips" produced molten iron at 420C. please explain how iron-oxide can reduce to elemental iron (and molten to boot) at 420C.

Quote

You mean, glassy residue that can be produced in fires from a number of sources within the WTC buildings, which can combine with crushed concrete and other contents?

no I didn't see or read astaneh saying that at all, let me re-read it to - "Dr. Astaneh-Asl said that in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue".

stundie is correct, you are a pantomime since your only response is just a form of "oh no it isn't".

Edited by Little Fish, 14 February 2013 - 11:35 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 14 February 2013 - 10:16 PM, said:

The best way to describe the pantomimes of debunker logic....Imagine a group of people on safari and they witness an incident..

Some describe a big cat catching a gazzelle, some are more specific and say it was a lion that caught the gazelle.

Debunker logic says it was not a lion, but a leopold and that none of them are qualified to say what type of cat it was cause they are not big cat experts.

Here is a question for the panto villans in this debunking play house, just out of curiousity, lets say you are at GZ and you removed some rubble and find some strange molten metal, how do you establish what it is?

A) Just pull a random metal out of the hat and say its metal X?
B )Don't bother trying to identify it, not even asking anyone else and just refer to it as molten metal?
C) Cool it down and examine what metal it is?
D) Just repeat the word aluminium, regardless of what metal it is cause when you look at it, you was in a different world and what other say it was who actually examined it.

Which of the following photos is aluminum, and which is steel?

What color are the droplets you see at the bottom of this photo?

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 February 2013 - 11:49 PM.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 14 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

This is not melted steel.

here's more evidence of extreme temperatures for you:

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue.
The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward.
''This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column,'' not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, ''It had burned first, then buckled.''"
http://www.nytimes.c...d-remedies.html

steel vaporizes at a much higher temperature than its melting temperature.
building fires cannot melt, let alone vaporize steel, so if not fires then what did it?

[skyeagle409]

Little Fish, on 14 February 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

so when a pointed question is put to you, you respond with your own questions of no obvious relevance. this is evasive behaviour.

Look at the photos after the aircraft struck WTC1 and WTC2. Now, explained why the impacts proved that incendiary paint could not have been applied to those buildings.No science degree is needed, just plain old-fashioned common sense is all it takes.

Quote

here is the question you evaded:
explain how it is possible to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

more bizarre unrelated questions instead of answers to a pointed question.

explain how to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

You have to understand that there were welders all over the place during the construction process of the WTC buildings and clean-up crews were using torches during the clean-up operations which create residue. On another note, canbonaceous fuel as a reductant can be used,  but that is irrelevant.

[Little Fish]

skyeagle409, on 15 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

You have to understand that there were welders all over the place during the construction process of the WTC buildings and clean-up crews were using torches during the clean-up operations which create residue. On another note, canbonaceous fuel as a reductant can be used,  but that is irrelevant.

welders...torches...clean up...hot...even more hotter....ah doughnuts.
ah yes Homer it all makes sense now.

carbonaceous fuel? so Homer, are you suggesting there was coal or oil in the calorimeter used by Harrit when he heated the "paint chips" to 420C?

last chance - explain how to reduce iron oxide to molten iron with temperatures lower than the melting temperature of iron.

Edited by Little Fish, 15 February 2013 - 12:19 AM.