ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 29th January 2008, 05:47 PM   #1
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had.

No mention of therm?te in this one.

So where did they go wrong?
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 06:22 PM   #2
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
I'd say it was wrong to collect "dust" a long ways away from the cite, analyze it then attribute it to being from the WTC (although it could be I guess). I don't see any analysis of a control sample to make any correlations to and yet they seem to suggest a control sample wouldn't have the concentrations they observed. I'd say that was wrong.

I see a well dressed pig I'm not taking to the prom.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 06:30 PM   #3
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp.pdf

This paper seems to raise a lot of the questions I have had recently had.

No mention of therm?te in this one.

So where did they go wrong?
I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite -
Quote:
The data provide strong evidence that chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic contributed to the destruction of the WTC buildings.
Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace).

Quote:
chemical reactions which were both violent and highly-exothermic
This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements.


Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.

Last edited by beachnut; 29th January 2008 at 06:37 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 06:38 PM   #4
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I think you missed the new "buzz" words for THERMITE! Jones is calling thermite - Or could the nut bar being talking about fire? BTW, I found the same stuff in my fire place! I wonder what violent and highly-exothermic did not destroy my wood burning stove (the fireplace).

This is Jones' new PA version of THERMITE, but then, his new paper is saying there was melted steel on a scale that destroyed the WTC. Jones is kind of a nut on this. BTW, Jones makes errors, bet you can't find them. Plus Jones supports the Official story! Bet you can't tell me his Official story support elements.

Two tasks for you grasshopper. Point out the simple errors Jones made, one will do! Two, point out how he supports fire did it. Good luck. You could ask Dr Jones, who planted his fantasy thermite.
Gimme a small hint and I'll have a go at it.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 06:56 PM   #5
mrwronggt13
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 110
Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.
mrwronggt13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 07:02 PM   #6
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 View Post
Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.


BZZZZT! Sorry, wrong answer.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 07:03 PM   #7
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
 
TheRedWorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,452
Your trolling is transparent, Mr. Wrong.
__________________
I'll be the best Congressman money can buy!

As usual, he doesn't understand the relevant sciences, can't Google for the right thing, and appears to rely on the notion that a word salad liberally sprinkled with Google Croutons will make his argument seem coherent. -JayUtah
TheRedWorm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 07:23 PM   #8
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,291
Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 View Post
Jones is trying hard to lead people back to the official story. Co-author Crockett Grabbe has been suggesting that Muslim terrorists planted thermite in the towers. These are insiders doing disinfo, leading the truth movement down a dead end. The thermite theory is absurd.

Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.
All I can do is laugh. Have you even finished grade school? Sorry, but if you are not joking, please go back to school, or finish grade school, get help from mom, or give up, you have super stupid ideas on 9/11 and it is disrespectful to those who died on 9/11 to make up lies without evidence! Everything you posted is wrong.

Last edited by beachnut; 29th January 2008 at 08:01 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 07:29 PM   #9
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 View Post
Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years. With all the clean-up work they've been doing at ground zero, they should have the levels down to where they can start building there pretty soon.

Look for cancer rates around ground zero to continue to explode over the next decade.
No it's dilithium, not tritium. That's "di" meaning 2, and lithium= 2-lithium, which I can only hope is your current recommended dosage.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 07:30 PM   #10
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Got any pictures of that evaporated steel mrwrong?
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 07:42 PM   #11
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value.

Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:02 PM   #12
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:02 PM   #13
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago:

"Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources"

I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:04 PM   #14
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
S&J Scientific Co., Provo, Utah
What, so now Jones is running his own consulting company? What, does he specialize in secret nano-thermite demolition techniques?
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:18 PM   #15
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
That's a lot of moronic authors for one paper. Perhaps they should have consulted experts rather than Legges, Grabbes, and Ryans.

So what did these morons get wrong?
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:20 PM   #16
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh.

One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:21 PM   #17
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,272
Originally Posted by mrwronggt13 View Post
Truth is, we've got evaporated steel, and plenty of radiation. It's some sort of nuclear reaction. Jones, plus guys like Frank Greening and Van Romero know what it was. They're all nuclear physicists and chemists from the nuclear industry.

They've figured out a relatively low-yield, controllable reaction. Probably fusion, given the tritium levels. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years...
Wrong. As noted in the other thread:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=lbnl

Quote:
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at [the]World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack...

Several tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that [the]Boeing 767-222 aircraft operated by the United Airlines that hit WTC Tower 2 as well as [the]Boeing 767-223ER operated by the American Airlines, that hit WTC Tower 1, had a combined 34{.3} Ci of tritium at the time of impact, contained in emergency signs. WTC hosted several law-enforcement agencies such as ATF, CIA, US Secret Service and US Customs. The ATF office had two weapon vaults in WTC Building 6. Also 63 Police Officers, possibly carrying handguns, died in the attack. The weaponry containing tritium sights was therefore a likely and significant source of tritium. It is possible that some of the 2824 victims carried tritium watches, however this source appears to be less significant than the other two.
(http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104832)

... and:

Originally Posted by DRBUZZ0 View Post
Tritium is generally very very low in the environment in general and 55x "Above average" is still much lower than you would ever expect as an indicator of fallout from any fusion weapon. Remember that radioisotopes can be measured at extremely minute levels, so if the general amount of tritium is very nearly zero than 55x is still a tiny tiny tiny itty bitty amount. The fact that they don't give an absolute amount of tritium (only "55X") is probably because it would look a lot less impressive if expressed in parts per billion or even parts per trillion...

... Now as far as what could account for the increased tritium. Even before I read the report I immediately thought "radiolumonescent devices" because thats the most common use for tritium and would more than account for the amount found. Basically these are self-powered glowing items which glow brightly and continuously in the dark, even without the need for "charging" with light. The amount of tritium in the, in terms of curies is quite high. They are common in emergency signs in aircraft. I actually think the amount of 34ci on the aircraft is a tad bit lower than I would have thought.

Also, as mentioned, in the sites of weapons, tritium is commonly used. It's found in higher-end glowing watches, but I doubt that would be anything signifficant. I have an exit sign which is labeled as containing 80 Ci of tritium as of manufacture. That's actually a lot. Most emergency exit signs have 20-40 or something like that.

But that having been said, they are quite common for emergency exit signs, especially because they can be installed and meet qualifications for emergency lighting without the need for any wiring or drilling of holes etc..

I do not know of any in the WTC or surrounding buildings, but I would not be surprised if there were. You would not need many to account for these levels. Anyone can buy these things. They're common. They have them in the library in my town and the walmart. They range from $150 up, but that can still be cheaper than a standard battery-backed exit sign and an electrician to wire for it. So, if you look around you see them a lot.

The world trade center was a HUGE office complex and since you don't need to have any sort of special licence for one of these, there may have been some.

Add in the weapons sites. The tritium signs on the aircraft. Possible broken signs in nearby buildings. It can more than account for the modest increase.
Tritium levels are far too low to indicate any sort of nuclear weapons use, and are explained by the presence of other sources.

ETA: Let me phrase that last sentence better - Tritium levels.... are explained by the presence of other very common, non-fusion, non-fission sources.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."

Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 29th January 2008 at 08:26 PM. Reason: Clarification
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:22 PM   #18
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
So what did these morons get wrong?
Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy?
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:23 PM   #19
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
So what did these morons get wrong?
everything except their names.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:23 PM   #20
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Dr. Jones' paper is interesting but, based on a quick read, he never really addresses possible "natural" sources of metal-rich microspheres. This would make the paper of considerably more value.

Why do I get the feeling SJ et al. are hiding their conclusions...
I did a study of rice husk ash in grad school, and I think I could show about 200 spectra that looked exactly like Jones's. Sulfur, aluminum, even iron rich particles are all extremely common, and all they represent are the primary elements found in the Earth's crust.

*For anyone interested: Rice husk ash is made by taking a large pile of rice husks and setting it on fire.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:24 PM   #21
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Ok, I looked over the paper. It certainly wouldn't pass review for any of my journals. Of course, his appendix explaining where he got the samples would make any reviewer from a forensic journal laugh.

One thing bothers me: Why does Jones assume that he knows the exact composition of the particles? There are three elements not detected in any X-ray technique: Hydrogen, Helium and Lithium. Why, then, does Jones assume that he has Fe2O3 and not Fe(OH)2?
Jones from 911blogger

Quote:
A little background is in order. The paper was written several months ago with the decision to focus on the "temperature gap" between temperatures reached in the "official story" and temperatures required by the data. (No mention of "thermite" was given in the paper -- so that might have a better chance of publication in a mainstream journal. Showing the "official explanation" to be wrong seemed sufficient for this paper.)

The paper was then given to two independent Professors of Physics for peer-review. They made suggestions which were implemented. Both of these Professors then approved publication in a scientific journal (neither is a 9/11 activist).
Next the paper was sent to a mainstream journal for publication (and their own peer-review). However, this journal returned the paper with the comment "beyond the scope of this journal." No technical comments were given, whatsoever.

Meanwhile, two of the authors in the above list wrote a separate (and distinct) paper and submitted it to another mainstream technical journal, about seven months ago. This paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication about two months ago, but still has yet to appear in print. We hope it will be published within ten months of submitting the paper.
The process is glacially slow, it seems...
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:25 PM   #22
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:26 PM   #23
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Why are you CTists obsessed with Gravy?
His sex appeal obviously.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:28 PM   #24
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
and I am guessing that JONES is the only "journal" they will be published in...lol

Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.

TAM
They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him.

Did you read the paper?
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:31 PM   #25
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:34 PM   #26
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
you see I am not doubting but that one of those "brilliant" fellows listed at the top knows how to operate a spectrometer and what ever other equipment is needed.

It is all in the PARANOID Interpretation of what the results mean!!!

As Frank has said...no speculation or even entertaining of NON CONSPIRATORIAL causes of the microspheres...that sounds really scientific doesn't it.

PATHETIC!!!

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:47 PM   #27
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Jones from 911blogger
It's unfortunate that Jones didn't bother to send it to any electron microprobe chemists, materials scientists or forensic chemists. They would have pointed out the same mistakes I pointed out.

Edited to add:
When did Jones post the article you showed?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

Last edited by The Almond; 29th January 2008 at 08:49 PM.
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 08:55 PM   #28
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
So what did these morons get wrong?
What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 10:58 PM   #29
quicknthedead
Thinker
 
quicknthedead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
This is abstracted from an e-mail I sent to SJ about a month ago:

"Right now my short list of candidates that could contribute to iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust (I am sure Chainsaw could add a lot more!) is (in no particular order!):

Pigments and fillers used in plastics
Fly ash from the combustion of cellulose-based materials: wood, cardboard and paper
Welding fume left in the towers from construction activities
Wear particles from grinding and cutting during construction of the towers
Iron powder cores from electronics (e.g. transformer cores)
Pyrotechnic agents (including thermite!)
NYC background levels of particulate from general environmental sources"

I would like to see SJ consider these sources, ONE BY ONE, before he draws any conclusions that he has found evidence for the use of explosives or thermite in the towers.


The point of the paper is the fires were not hot enough to achieve the temperatures for the applicable melting points required.

It is remarkable the government did not address this.



From the paper:
---------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material
°C
°F


To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
1,000
1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)
1,450
2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation)
1,538
2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)
1,565
2,849

To vaporize lead
1,740
3,164


To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)
2,623
4,753


To vaporize aluminosilicates
2,760
5,000


--------------------------------------------------------------



So, what is the source for the extreme temperatures indicated?
quicknthedead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:04 PM   #30
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
everything except their names.

TAM
The date! They rarely get the date wrong.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:11 PM   #31
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

No I have not. Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???

TAM
Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM. Gravy has pointed this out several times.

However what Gravy fails to address is:

they concluded that the fires were able to reach these temperatures:

Quote:
From the paper:
---------------------------------------------------------
Table 1. Approximate Minimum Temperatures Required Process and material
°C
°F

To form Fe-O-S eutectic (with ~50 Mol % sulfur) in steel
1,000
1,832

To melt aluminosilicates (spherule formation)
1,450
2,652

To melt iron (spherule formation)
1,538
2,800

To melt iron (III) oxide (spherule formation)
1,565
2,849

To vaporize lead
1,740
3,164

To melt molybdenum (spherule formation)
2,623
4,753

To vaporize aluminosilicates
2,760
5,000
Gimme a break. Look at those temperatures.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:20 PM   #32
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
What I said in my post. Because they didn't consult experts, they're taking shots in the dark.
Um, a lot of what they did is confirmed by past scientists.

You even told me that silly.

Peep the temps in the paper.

Can you seriously argue the fires got that hot?

Read the paper Gravy.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:26 PM   #33
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
SO NO SERIOUS CRITIQUE YET?

Not surprising actually.....
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:28 PM   #34
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al. Read the paper TAM.

No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler.

And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:34 PM   #35
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
No, there is nothing in the paper that claims that Jones released his samples to others for independent analysis. Read for comprehension, Sizzler.

And read The Almond's posts in this thread again, while you're at it.
I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released.

I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances.

Read the paper smarty pants.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:43 PM   #36
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
I'm going to make a bold assertion that no one can debunk this paper....

Who is gonna prove me wrong?

ps. my money is on Crazy Chainsaw if anyone.

Last edited by Sizzler; 29th January 2008 at 11:44 PM.
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:47 PM   #37
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I didn't claim the exact samples he has were released.
As I said, you failed to read for comprehension. It went like this:

Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Once again, now that he has published a paper on his earth shattering microspheres, WILL HE NOW RELEASE HIS SAMPLES FOR INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

I am guessing....NO.
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
They have already been analyzed by other scientists, well before him.
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS?

Are you telling me that a third party, unconnected to the 9/11 truth movement got the samples and analyzed them, themselves? And if so, what oh great "agnostic" sizzler, did they conclude???
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Yes, this was analyzed by other scientists before Jones et al.

Either you utterly failed to comprehend TAM's posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Neither is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
I claimed previous scientists analyzed other samples and found the same substances.
Well, no, actually, you didn't. And, in any event, other samples are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Read the paper smarty pants.
I did. I wasn't impressed.

I was, however, addressing the point about Jones not providing his samples for independent analysis and your apparent assertions to the contrary.

Last edited by LashL; 29th January 2008 at 11:51 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th January 2008, 11:50 PM   #38
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
As I said, you failed to read for comprehension. It went like this:










Either you utterly failed to comprehend TAM's posts, or you are being deliberately obtuse. Neither is acceptable.



Well, no, actually, you didn't. And, in any event, other samples are not at all relevant to the discussion at hand.



I did.
Ok you are right. The exact samples Jones has were not analyzed by other scientists.

It doesn't matter though. Other scientists examined other samples and found the exact same particles.

Half of the paper is about the particles in the other samples analyzed by other scientists.

What specifically do you have problems with in the paper?
Sizzler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 12:18 AM   #39
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Sizzler must have missed the part where they listed all the other possible causes. And while THEY may think those temperatures cannot be reached in an office fire, doesn't mean they couldn't have been reached in the WTC. As well as ignoring that some of the possible causes would have nothing to do with the fires in the WTC.

But if it helps one to live out a fantasy by pretending something is not debunked (forget that it's not an issue of debunking anyways), then so be it. Kinda of like how Sizzler kept asking about the Pentagon security cameras yet kept ignoring all the posts that WOULD address his questions. Probably not intentional, but a common trend among people who are clearly hoping to find a conspiracy if possible.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 12:27 AM   #40
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,686
Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Ok you are right. The exact samples Jones has were not analyzed by other scientists.
That's because Jones has not permitted anyone else to analyze them. Does it not give you pause to wonder why he would not want an actual expert in the appropriate field to analyze them?

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
It doesn't matter though.
Yes, it does matter, because it is these particular spherules that are at issue.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Other scientists examined other samples and found the exact same particles.
Again, it is Jones' particular samples that are at issue here, not any others.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
Half of the paper is about the particles in the other samples analyzed by other scientists.
That's because Jones is trying to hitch his falling (fallen) star to others who may have more credibility than he does, but it's a poor attempt, as it is only his own samples that are actually at issue here.

Originally Posted by Sizzler View Post
What specifically do you have problems with in the paper?

1) See above
2) It fails to adequately describe its collection methods of the spherules.
3) It fails to adequately describe the locations and conditions in which those spherules were found.
4) It fails to adequately address the chain of custody of the spherules.
5) It ignores the myriad possible naturally occurring sources for the elements it claims to have found while simultaneously assuming something nefarious.
6) The samples have never been independently analyzed by experts.
7) It makes spurious and unsupported claims.
8) See The Almond's posts in this thread.
9) See the previous threads on the topic of spherules in this sub-forum.
10) The paper is written more like an internet post than a professional, scholarly article.

There are 10 problems that I, as a layperson, see with it. I suspect that those with relevant experience, knowledge and expertise can easily identify many more.

Now, here's a question for you, if you don't mind.

What is it about this particular paper that you find to be good, sound, accurate, and/or compelling?

Last edited by LashL; 30th January 2008 at 12:30 AM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.