In all seriousness I made this for a couple of main reasons:
A) Because the original thread has gotten so incredibly distracted from its original OP that splitting all of the posts from it will likely be unfeasible.
B) This distraction pretty much flooded out any attempt I made to ask the thread creator to address his own OP To the point he wasn’t even participating.
The OP of the thread this is split from was as follows:
|
Originally Posted by RedIbis
(Post 6130745) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDF…layer_embedded
So what’s wrong with the experiment? What’s it’s weaknesses? Does it have any validity? If not, why not? I don’t think it’s perfect, but I think this is a very helpful experiment. As Cole points out, whereas there may be sources for sulfur in the building materials, how did it enter the intergranular structure? And if these experiments are relatively easy to conduct, why didn’t NIST do any for their final report? If this video and experiment is not the type of sincere research that can be done by independent scientists, I’d like to know what is. Besides there are shoutouts to Jones, Greening and Mackey. Enjoy. |
For those who have not seen the video yet the main focus is an experiment by the publisher on a steel girder to “simulate” the debris pile conditions and “prove” that the condition of some steel samples recovered were not a product of the debris pile fires or conditions, but rather thermite/ate burning in the debris pile.
————————————————–
My main criticism of this experiment – putting aside the video maker’s obvious cliche claims of first time in history, and others – is his failure to accurately model the conditions within the debris pile of which there exist several. Perhaps the most explicit of which include:
Location & local climate – Did this individual take the location’s proximity to water into account.
Was sufficient time allotted to his experiment to accurately model the decomposition of the wallboard?
Both of the above would have facilitated in the release of sulfur locked in the pulverized wallboard.
Heat within the debris pile from the fires would cause evaporation of water intruding areas of the rubble. Did this individual’s experiment consider any potential effects that this would factor in?
————————————
In other words, given the relative “ease” of performing this experiment as claimed by the original poster, the conductor of this experiment has apparently still failed to account for a series of additional conditions that must be considered for maintaining a representative result.
I would also argue that he has established no ‘control’ condition with which to make a comparison. Since the conductor clearly suggests that the “official” explanation is insufficient, and that instead something like thermite was more likely responsible one must wonder why he did not also perform a control experiment. I’m sure there may be various reason involved, including perhaps limited finances and possible issues, however an added experiment would have very well assisted in corroborating the results he claims to get from them.
—————————
Any of those who believe this experiment has viability is free to bring up whatever objections they might have to the concerns I raised. ANd those wishing to add to this are free to comment as well.
Oh… and I’d appreciate it if this time we don’t end up in a complete derail because a couple of posters decided on their own topic to discuss. I made repeated attempts in the other thread to try get back on track and they were pretty much ignored. I hope to avoid this happening in a separate thread. (Even if that means the whole topic dies anyway because nobody’s interested in talking about it. :rolleyes
Related articles by Zemanta
- Watch Engineer Tackles the Mystery of ‘Swiss Cheese’ 9/11 Steel (grantlawrence.blogspot.com)
- BP’s Deepwater Oil Spill – Start of the Static Kill – and Open Thread 2 (theoildrum.com)
- DARPA and NIST testing real-time translation system for use in Afghanistan… with a Nexus One (engadget.com)
Related posts:
