TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.debunking911.com/
And?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.debunking911.com/
i looked at that website. i was wondering who owned it and did a lookup but couldnt find any names. then on the website i see this:
Q: Why do you hide your identity?
A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was.
i did look at the "meteorite" debunking claim. it looks to me as though he presents another "meteorite" as the debunker, not the one steven jones presents.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
now for the fema report of wtc7 steel.
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. 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.
Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
from the nist report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.debunking911.com/
i looked at that website. i was wondering who owned it and did a lookup but couldnt find any names. then on the website i see this:
Q: Why do you hide your identity?
A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was.
i did look at the "meteorite" debunking claim. it looks to me as though he presents another "meteorite" as the debunker, not the one steven jones presents.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
now for the fema report of wtc7 steel.
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. 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.
Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
from the nist report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
You C&P information but continually shy away from making any actual assertions of your own which is, one can only assume, to avoid having to defend those assrrtions. Instead of the equivalent of a post and run, how about providing an analysis in your own words of what you believe those findings imply. Let's stop with the appeals to authority and linking to websites (Which was my point of just posting a link to debunking911.com; to demonstrate how simple it is to post a link in order to rely on others to make your argument for you.) I always get the impression that when CTs do that sort of thing it's because they don't understand enough to discuss these issues, particularly the physics and engineering aspects, on their own. If that's the case, how can any of them truly comprehend those technical aspects in the first place to determine what's true and what's pure baloney?
So can you discuss any of this without having to rely on links and appeals to authority? Let's hear what YOU have to say.
Translation: TLC smoked me previously in a discussion on 9/11 so don't actually say anything and follow the usual CT rules of post & run or else you'll get trounced on this subject.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Figures. Can't refute the evidence so you attack the messenger. :laugh:
Nothing new for you.
event8horizon - Just let this kid spout his BS. He will get you into a circular argument thereby foregoing the subsequent and inevitability of his own defeat.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Translation: TLC smoked me previously in a discussion on 9/11 so don't actually say anything and follow the usual CT rules of post & run or else you'll get trounced on this subject.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Figures. Can't refute the evidence so you attack the messenger. :laugh:
Nothing new for you.
event8horizon - Just let this kid spout his BS. He will get you into a circular argument thereby foregoing the subsequent and inevitability of his own defeat.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And?Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.debunking911.com/
i looked at that website. i was wondering who owned it and did a lookup but couldnt find any names. then on the website i see this:
Q: Why do you hide your identity?
A: It should be none of anyone's business who I am. If I'm right, the evidence will back me up. If I'm wrong the evidence will expose it the same as if you knew who I was.
i did look at the "meteorite" debunking claim. it looks to me as though he presents another "meteorite" as the debunker, not the one steven jones presents.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
"Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport."
now for the fema report of wtc7 steel.
Several regions in the section of the beam shown in Figures C-1 and C-2 were examined to determine microstructural changes that occurred in the A36 structural steel as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent fires. Although the exact location of this beam in the building was not known, the severe erosion found in several beams warranted further consideration. In this preliminary study, optical and scanning electron metallography techniques were used to examine the most severely eroded regions as exemplified in the metallurgical mount shown in Figure C-3. Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. 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.
Summary for Sample 1
The thinning of the steel occurred by a high-temperture corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel.
The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.
from the nist report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
You C&P information but continually shy away from making any actual assertions of your own which is, one can only assume, to avoid having to defend those assrrtions. Instead of the equivalent of a post and run, how about providing an analysis in your own words of what you believe those findings imply. Let's stop with the appeals to authority and linking to websites (Which was my point of just posting a link to debunking911.com; to demonstrate how simple it is to post a link in order to rely on others to make your argument for you.) I always get the impression that when CTs do that sort of thing it's because they don't understand enough to discuss these issues, particularly the physics and engineering aspects, on their own. If that's the case, how can any of them truly comprehend those technical aspects in the first place to determine what's true and what's pure baloney?
So can you discuss any of this without having to rely on links and appeals to authority? Let's hear what YOU have to say.
I didn't claim to know all. But I trounced you on the subject.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Translation: TLC smoked me previously in a discussion on 9/11 so don't actually say anything and follow the usual CT rules of post & run or else you'll get trounced on this subject.Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Figures. Can't refute the evidence so you attack the messenger. :laugh:
Nothing new for you.
event8horizon - Just let this kid spout his BS. He will get you into a circular argument thereby foregoing the subsequent and inevitability of his own defeat.
^^He knows all folks. Tells the truth every time :roll:
Notice how he still doesn't have an answer to event8horizon?
Thanks for proving my point about you :laugh:
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.debunking911.com/
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I didn't claim to know all. But I trounced you on the subject.
And the reason I don't have an answer to event8horizon is because he doesn't come to any conclusion. He posts findings with no conclusion and DOESN'T even bother to state what he believes those findings mean. That's why I'm requesting that he state a conclusion instead of making ambiguous C&P posts.
Now is that clear or do I need to explain it to you again, idiot?
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ey=y&keyword1=pentagonOriginally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- what did tlc trounce u on????
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
No, I don't find it strange at all. They are two separate agencies with two different tasks in regard to the 9/11 structure collapses.Originally posted by: event8horizon
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ey=y&keyword1=pentagonOriginally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- what did tlc trounce u on????
Seems PC Surgeon has some short-term memory issues.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I don't find it strange at all. They are two separate agencies with two different tasks in regard to the 9/11 structure collapses.Originally posted by: event8horizon
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
Besides that, the fact that there was no indication whatsoever of any demolitions residue or chemical markers found in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel that was tested already blows a massive hole in the theory that WTC 7 was a controlled detonation. If one is to believe that WTC 7 was a demolition then the grand plan was to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to have them collapse in order to hide the Demolition of WTC 7? C'mon, that's got to be too wacky and convoluted even for conspriacy theorists to buy.
Why do you keep reposting this? What is your point? Without your conclusion it's completely meaningless for you to post it in the first place.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I don't find it strange at all. They are two separate agencies with two different tasks in regard to the 9/11 structure collapses.Originally posted by: event8horizon
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
Besides that, the fact that there was no indication whatsoever of any demolitions residue or chemical markers found in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel that was tested already blows a massive hole in the theory that WTC 7 was a controlled detonation. If one is to believe that WTC 7 was a demolition then the grand plan was to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to have them collapse in order to hide the Demolition of WTC 7? C'mon, that's got to be too wacky and convoluted even for conspriacy theorists to buy.
NIST NCSTAR 1-3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
"The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ey=y&keyword1=pentagonOriginally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- what did tlc trounce u on????
Seems PC Surgeon has some short-term memory issues.
Yeah you "trounced" me in that thread. :roll:
I see a mutual discussion and no where near a "trouncing". Try again :laugh:
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...ey=y&keyword1=pentagonOriginally posted by: event8horizon
surgeon- what did tlc trounce u on????
Seems PC Surgeon has some short-term memory issues.
Yeah you "trounced" me in that thread. :roll:
I see a mutual discussion and no where near a "trouncing". Try again :laugh:
And that's why you exited the thread never to return? Mutual discussion was getting too much you?
lol.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I don't find it strange at all. They are two separate agencies with two different tasks in regard to the 9/11 structure collapses.Originally posted by: event8horizon
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
Besides that, the fact that there was no indication whatsoever of any demolitions residue or chemical markers found in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel that was tested already blows a massive hole in the theory that WTC 7 was a controlled detonation. If one is to believe that WTC 7 was a demolition then the grand plan was to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to have them collapse in order to hide the Demolition of WTC 7? C'mon, that's got to be too wacky and convoluted even for conspriacy theorists to buy.
Yes, two different tasks. FEMA was tasked to discover why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed. NIST is tasked to look into the collapses in order to enhance future standards and ensure safer building codes in the future. It's a "lessons learned" sort of approach. Those are two entirely different tasks.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I don't find it strange at all. They are two separate agencies with two different tasks in regard to the 9/11 structure collapses.Originally posted by: event8horizon
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
Besides that, the fact that there was no indication whatsoever of any demolitions residue or chemical markers found in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel that was tested already blows a massive hole in the theory that WTC 7 was a controlled detonation. If one is to believe that WTC 7 was a demolition then the grand plan was to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to have them collapse in order to hide the Demolition of WTC 7? C'mon, that's got to be too wacky and convoluted even for conspriacy theorists to buy.
this is why i reposted. 2 different tasks?? they both wanted to analyze the steel. thats why. one had some, one didnt.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Yes, two different tasks. FEMA was tasked to discover why WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed. NIST is tasked to look into the collapses in order to enhance future standards and ensure safer building codes in the future. It's a "lessons learned" sort of approach. Those are two entirely different tasks.Originally posted by: event8horizon
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, I don't find it strange at all. They are two separate agencies with two different tasks in regard to the 9/11 structure collapses.Originally posted by: event8horizon
u dont find it strange fema had some steel to analyze and nist did not. we will see in a few months when the nist report comes out. until then, thats all im saying about that.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
You question the FEMA report how, exactly? What do you question? What are you trying to claim about the corroded steel? What's is the implication of not testing any steel from WTC 7? Why do you omit the fact that steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was tested for explosives by FEMA and nothing was found?Originally posted by: event8horizon
i question the nist report. fema had some steel, nist didnt from wtc7. im just showing the readers the inconsistancies.
i do get your point. if i linked something saying rogue element of the cia, mi6, isi, mossad and with the "aid of the zionist world" like that ex italian prez said, it would be a different story. my links are mostly from the nist and fema report.
You make a lot of implications and suggestions but don't really say anything concrete. Obviously you have an opinion on what those things mean, so let's hear it. Otherwise your argument is little more than begging the question, a well known logical fallacy.
Besides that, the fact that there was no indication whatsoever of any demolitions residue or chemical markers found in the WTC 1 and WTC 2 steel that was tested already blows a massive hole in the theory that WTC 7 was a controlled detonation. If one is to believe that WTC 7 was a demolition then the grand plan was to fly planes into WTC 1 and WTC 2 to have them collapse in order to hide the Demolition of WTC 7? C'mon, that's got to be too wacky and convoluted even for conspriacy theorists to buy.
this is why i reposted. 2 different tasks?? they both wanted to analyze the steel. thats why. one had some, one didnt.
As far as "wanting" to analyze the steel, the NIST document doesn't seem to express any such desire. It's a short, matter-of-fact statement that defines where NIST got its information on the material properties from.