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 2nd February 2008, 08:51 AM   #441
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Originally Posted by BenBurch View Post
We learn only from our failures. Remember that.

Thank you Great Teacher.
Max Photon 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 2nd February 2008, 09:10 AM   #442
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Stupiter dust

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
StoneRook:

You have a valid point but dust from comparable building collapses might be hard to find because of the involvement of jet aircraft, the unique design and age of the WTC etc, etc.

One point to remember, though, is that a lot of research was carried out on WTC dust because of environmental and health concerns as well as the associated insurance claims. Thus many researchers have been looking for some distinctive characteristic of WTC dust that could serve to distinguish it from ordinary " NYC" dust. Iron-rich microspheres were actually on the short list of such characteristics but I believe slag wool was finally chosen by the EPA as the definitive WTC dust identifier.

We will probably see with the passage of time that the many different studies of WTC dust - probably most of which are currently isolated from one another - (like dust!) - coalesce.

These meta-studies that emerge - these research proto-planets - will probably make identifying samples such as Jones' much easier.


Beaming to you live from Stupiter - which is right between Saturn and Jupiter,

Max
Max Photon 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 2nd February 2008, 07:40 PM   #443
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Hot Rubble Pile Reference

Found this just today:

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002):

Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora:

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

This is coincidently the melting point of iron!

However, I believe this is much hotter than the thermal imaging data reported by the USGS.
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 2nd February 2008, 09:14 PM   #444
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Found this just today:

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002):

Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora:

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

This is coincidently the melting point of iron!

However, I believe this is much hotter than the thermal imaging data reported by the USGS.
Found and downloaded that paper. After reading it, I wanted to run down the original source for that "2,800" degree claim. To that end, that article provides an attribution: "Vincoli JW, Black NH, Burkhammer SC. 2002. SH and E at Ground Zero. Professional Safety, May 2002, 21–28".

I found the periodical "Professional Safety" (it's nice to work for a university. Their online periodical collection is great!), and got a hold of the article "SH&E at Ground Zero" (I don't know what "SH&E" stands for, but they're a group of professionals working for the Bechtel corporation). The bottom line is, the article implies that the temperature readings were taken by Bechtel's own helicopter:

Quote:
"Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400F to more than 2,800F. The surface was so hot that standing too long in one spot softened (and even melted) the soles of our safety shoes. Steel toes would often heat up and become intolerable.
So in the end, we can attribute the 2,800 degree temperature measurement to the Bechtel corporation, documented in the article cited above.

Now, the question is why the USGS didn't use Bechtel's measurement in their own report, but that's a topic for a different thread. I can't figure out why myself. At any rate, we can now return to the microsphere topic.

(Ps. If anyone wants a copy of either the American Journal of Industrial Medicine, or the Professional Safety article, I have both. I'm not certain what the copyright issues in sharing them are are, but in the name of research, I don't see a big problem (if anyone else does, speak up!). Just PM me).
__________________
"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."
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 2nd February 2008, 09:46 PM   #445
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
SH&E is a safety industry abbreviation for "Safety, Health, & Environmental."
__________________
"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 2nd February 2008, 10:56 PM   #446
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,266
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
SH&E is a safety industry abbreviation for "Safety, Health, & Environmental."

Ahh! That makes sense. Thanks!
__________________
"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."
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 3rd February 2008, 04:05 AM   #447
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Wrong 6 years ago. Gee, even RJ Lee said fire. Jones made this up 4 years after 9/11. Mislead by an idiot idea, from a possible insane professor of fusion physics. I hope his physics work was better than his failed thermite and cider block test model of the WTC. Failure is 9/11 truth, and represented in Jones work of zero research, just talk school of DRG. Did DRG support Jones' work on the article claiming evidence that Jesus Christ visited the Americas. Did Jones get help from Christ to figure out Thermite?

Seems to me, to have this perfectly insane insight into 9/11, 4 years after the fact, he must of received the word from Christ when he also was inspried to writh his article about Christ. With expert theologian and super hearsay "truth" aurthor, DRG, I doubt if we can fight the truth! As you say, with enough time the insane ideas of Jones will have to be truth; just ask Uncle Fetzer. Oops, he broke up with Jones when they went their separate but both nut case idea way.

So you are not sure about real evidence, but you are sure with enough time the pile of lies with come up to be the truth.

You may be a truther if you say -
Of course you are so sure about that you retract your statement almost - Oops I made a mistake, you did not say anything. So you are a truther.

Just glad you did not find real support for Jones in his RJ Lee citations. I think you may of uncovered errors in Lee's work, you should go public; or did you miss it as you posted accepting the errors in Jones' work?

So you believe 9/11 was an inside job, like the guy who Clinton said those groups ideas make them "look like idiots". Or you are not a truther but keep repeating How do you feel to have gut feeling that even Clinton says is a sign of "looking like an idiot"? Good that Jones just made this up and has crazy ideas on 9/11; how did you get your false ideas, and a gut feeling, that is also wrong on 9/11? Did these charlatans fool you? Was it the false ideas from LCFC? What is the key for people like you to say, , without evidence and just the false papers like Jones' work?
didn't you already post something similar to this a few pages back?

oh wait, now you've thrown clinton's comments into the mix.

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 3rd February 2008, 05:15 AM   #448
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
On another board, a poster made a rather cryptic remark about a mineral substance identified as tremolite that is used as a substitute for asbestos in modern construction. Perhaps a component of rock wool incorporated into the insulation? Would it have contributed to any of the oddities in the dust?

(Lets see if Jones eventually tries to tell us that that should be present in thermite.)

And now, thinking of that, was there any significant amount of calcium in any of Jones' microspheres? That should have been present in any kind of cast thermite that i can think of, which would be neccessary to make some of the cuts that would support Jones' theories.
leftysergeant 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 3rd February 2008, 06:26 AM   #449
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Found this just today:

American Journal of Industrial Medicine 42, 532, (2002):

Paper on health and safety issues at the WTC site by R. Spadafora:

"Fires burned beneath the rubble for the first 4 months of the operation. Helicopters using thermal imaging cameras revealed underground temperatures ranging from 400 to more than 2,800 deg F."

This is coincidently the melting point of iron!

However, I believe this is much hotter than the thermal imaging data reported by the USGS.
IT is hotter than the thermal imaging data published by the USGS.
As I always stated I expect those types of temperatures in the rubble pile.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 3rd February 2008, 06:36 AM   #450
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,394
I think the answer is simple enough. For some time now Dr Jones has been sitting on evidence that could help to bring the real perpetrators of this crime to justice . If Dr Jones really thinks what he hs found is something why doesn't he do two things

1 Pony up the money , hire some real experts in the field to examine his "evidence" and let the chips fall where they may instead of just using it as some more slides in his traveling show.

2 Hand some of this magic dust over to the prpoer authorities

I think i can guess why. Although you could make the argument that by attempting to publish this paper he is finally trying to do something more than just add some mileage to his lecture circuit.
eeyore1954 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 3rd February 2008, 04:15 PM   #451
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Hokey smokes!!


So rather than focus on hyperbaric explosives, you should instead start looking into hypotheses involving, for instance, expanding foam, or (dare I say) collapse of the upper structure.

If you need still further help, as I imagine you do, please start another thread. This is long overdue.

I started a new thread at http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=105423

I have no idea what you mean by an 'expanding foam' - I take it you were joking.
metamars 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 3rd February 2008, 04:20 PM   #452
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
I stand corrected!

Well, I have been complaining on this thread that Steven Jones is yet to tell us how much of his WTC dust sample is "iron-rich microspheres". In fact I have suggested that all he has said by way of an answer to this question is that "We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets... (which) were predominately iron-rich."

Now the word abundance is very vague, but it certainly suggests a lot... say more than 25 %.

Well, I have now discovered that SJ has in fact made an estimate of the fraction of microspheres in the WTC dust, so, I STAND CORRECTED!

But what is Jones' estimate?

Well, go to page 78 of his May 2007 JONES article entitled "Revisiting 9/11/2001 - Applying the Scientific Method."

Here we read:

"The mass of the two larger spheres (0.012 g) found in the sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012/32.1 = 0.04 %"

0.04 % !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is Jones' idea of "an abundance"!!!!
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 3rd February 2008, 05:44 PM   #453
quicknthedead
Thinker
 
quicknthedead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Wow, it's Craig Furlong. Never thought I'd see you here again. I might take this opportunity to remind you to retract your seismic paper. Your prompt attention is appreciated. Thanks.
You are the one who needs to clean up his error, Mackey. I notice in your "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" you claim Ross' and my paper is incorrect (page 79 and following). However, the truth is you are in gross error in your paper regarding our use of the term "origin time" for seismic events, and everything you wrote and the examples provided do not dissuade from this fact. It is amazing what some people do to prop up false ideas such as what you did in your paper on a simple time definition. Personally, I think you are smarter than that--perhaps you just lied.

"Origin time" means exactly what it says. The following are examples of this seismic term's definition:

The precise time that an earthquake rupture occurs. On a seismogram, the earthquake origin time can be determined by the P wave arrival.
http://rev.seis.sc.edu/definition.html

What is the origin time of the earthquake?; that is when did it happen?
http://mimp.mems.cmu.edu/~ordofmag/earthqua/earqua.htm

Determination of the time at which the earthquake broke out : the origin time
http://www.mgm.monschau.de/seismic/e.../artikel_6.php


And some origin times referred to in our paper:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Therefore, our paper still stands while yours needs cleanup...and 9/11 WAS an inside job.
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 3rd February 2008, 05:46 PM   #454
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
 
Mr. Skinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,506
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
SH&E is a safety industry abbreviation for "Safety, Health, & Environmental."
Another common abbreviation for the industry is "ESOH" or Environment, Safety, & Occupational Health or "ESH" or Environment, Safety, and Health.

Depends on your country and other factors.
__________________
U.S.L.S 1969-1975
"thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk
"He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana
"Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele
Mr. Skinny 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 3rd February 2008, 05:51 PM   #455
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by quicknthedead View Post
You are the one who needs to clean up his error, Mackey. I notice in your "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" you claim Ross' and my paper is incorrect (page 79 and following). However, the truth is you are in gross error in your paper regarding our use of the term "origin time" for seismic events, and everything you wrote and the examples provided do not dissuade from this fact. It is amazing what some people do to prop up false ideas such as what you did in your paper on a simple time definition. Personally, I think you are smarter than that--perhaps you just lied.

"Origin time" means exactly what it says. The following are examples of this seismic term's definition:

The precise time that an earthquake rupture occurs. On a seismogram, the earthquake origin time can be determined by the P wave arrival.
http://rev.seis.sc.edu/definition.html

What is the origin time of the earthquake?; that is when did it happen?
http://mimp.mems.cmu.edu/~ordofmag/earthqua/earqua.htm

Determination of the time at which the earthquake broke out : the origin time
http://www.mgm.monschau.de/seismic/e.../artikel_6.php


And some origin times referred to in our paper:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Therefore, our paper still stands while yours needs cleanup...and 9/11 WAS an inside job.

Why do you enjoy being slapped down by someone so much smarter than you are? How does it help the evil movement you serve?

Incidentally, there were no explosives used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks.
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 3rd February 2008, 05:55 PM   #456
quicknthedead
Thinker
 
quicknthedead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 173
Nonsense on your part.

Get knowledge; it will help.
BTW, the evil you speak of is in your camp.
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 3rd February 2008, 05:57 PM   #457
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by quicknthedead View Post
Nonsense on your part.

Get knowledge; it will help.
BTW, the evil you speak of is in your camp.


One of the great joys of being a rationalist is getting to watch a real scientist with a fine mind expose you doltish frauds.

Last edited by pomeroo; 3rd February 2008 at 06:01 PM.
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 3rd February 2008, 05:58 PM   #458
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by quicknthedead View Post
You are the one who needs to clean up his error, Mackey. I notice in your "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" you claim Ross' and my paper is incorrect (page 79 and following). However, the truth is you are in gross error in your paper regarding our use of the term "origin time" for seismic events, and everything you wrote and the examples provided do not dissuade from this fact. It is amazing what some people do to prop up false ideas such as what you did in your paper on a simple time definition. Personally, I think you are smarter than that--perhaps you just lied.

Funny, even Dr. Griffin won't stand behind your paper. He merely cites it as a "disputed possibility," even though he only cites Truth Movement sources.

I really don't get your strategy. Your error is so simple, so instantly verified by anyone who can read a graph -- what do you possibly have to gain by still vehemently attacking anyone who tries to correct you?

Money? Fame? Help me out, here.
R.Mackey 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 3rd February 2008, 05:59 PM   #459
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Originally Posted by quicknthedead View Post
Nonsense on your part.

Get knowledge; it will help.
BTW, the evil you speak of is in your camp.
So why is it YOUR camp which stalks people? Eh?
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 3rd February 2008, 06:01 PM   #460
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
One of the great joys of being a rationalist is getting to watch a real scientist with a fine mind expose you doltish frauds
I will consider it a personal revenge against some of these arrogant truthers the fact that the 911 truth movement will go nowhere and will not garner support from ANY respected scientist or ANYBODY who even has a chance of doing something about it EVER.
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

Last edited by twinstead; 3rd February 2008 at 06:02 PM.
twinstead 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 3rd February 2008, 06:06 PM   #461
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Mr. Furlong's Last Stand

Here you go, Craig.

Take a look at this picture: LDEO Seismometry of Aircraft Impacts

Write what time the events occured, to the nearest second is good enough.

Then compare this result to the numbers in your paper.

That ought to do it.
R.Mackey 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 3rd February 2008, 06:27 PM   #462
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Well, I have been complaining on this thread that Steven Jones is yet to tell us how much of his WTC dust sample is "iron-rich microspheres". In fact I have suggested that all he has said by way of an answer to this question is that "We found an abundance of tiny solidified droplets... (which) were predominately iron-rich."

Now the word abundance is very vague, but it certainly suggests a lot... say more than 25 %.

Well, I have now discovered that SJ has in fact made an estimate of the fraction of microspheres in the WTC dust, so, I STAND CORRECTED!

But what is Jones' estimate?

Well, go to page 78 of his May 2007 JONES article entitled "Revisiting 9/11/2001 - Applying the Scientific Method."

Here we read:

"The mass of the two larger spheres (0.012 g) found in the sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012/32.1 = 0.04 %"

0.04 % !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is Jones' idea of "an abundance"!!!!
To a man in the desert dying of thirst, a half cup of water is abundance. However it will only keep him alive for just so long. This seems to be the last dying moans of the thermite theories.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 3rd February 2008, 06:42 PM   #463
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Well, go to page 78 of his May 2007 JONES article entitled "Revisiting 9/11/2001 - Applying the Scientific Method."

Here we read:

"The mass of the two larger spheres (0.012 g) found in the sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012/32.1 = 0.04 %"
Yeah, I too am not impressed with 0.04%. Doubly so since this is based on 0.012 grams of iron. I gravely doubt his sampling methods are accurate enough to estimate milligram quantities.

If anything, comparison to the other papers on the subject suggest that this dust isn't WTC dust at all. It doesn't have enough microspheres!

I'm calling this one closed unless something more interesting shows up.
R.Mackey 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 3rd February 2008, 08:35 PM   #464
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
...as likely as the tabloids swearing off of Brittany.

Last edited by Max Photon; 3rd February 2008 at 08:36 PM.
Max Photon 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 3rd February 2008, 08:38 PM   #465
quicknthedead
Thinker
 
quicknthedead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Here you go, Craig.

Take a look at this picture: LDEO Seismometry of Aircraft Impacts

Write what time the events occured, to the nearest second is good enough.

Then compare this result to the numbers in your paper.

That ought to do it.
I have seen that picture many times and it proves nothing.

The seismic origin time compared to the radar time is what this is about. Your paper is fallacious on this (you failed to take a moment to determine the definition for this term).

No one has dismissed the radar times as being inaccurate, and no one has dismissed the seismic origin times accepted by NIST as being anything but accurate. You can not overturn these facts, Mackey.

AA Flt 11 impacted WTC1 at 8:46:40, but the NIST seismic origin time for the same event (supposedly) is 8:46:30 (plus or minus one second).

That's a 10-second UTC difference. Got any ideas on that?

And while you're thinking, try taking your wrong definition for seismic "origin time" and replacing it with the right one. It is what it is.

"Origin Time" is exactly that--the precise moment for when the seismic event occurred.

Adios
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 3rd February 2008, 08:40 PM   #466
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by quicknthedead View Post
I have seen that picture many times and it proves nothing.

The seismic origin time compared to the radar time is what this is about. Your paper is fallacious on this (you failed to take a moment to determine the definition for this term).

No one has dismissed the radar times as being inaccurate, and no one has dismissed the seismic origin times accepted by NIST as being anything but accurate. You can not overturn these facts, Mackey.

AA Flt 11 impacted WTC1 at 8:46:40, but the NIST seismic origin time for the same event (supposedly) is 8:46:30 (plus or minus one second).

That's a 10-second UTC difference. Got any ideas on that?

And while you're thinking, try taking your wrong definition for seismic "origin time" and replacing it with the right one. It is what it is.

"Origin Time" is exactly that--the precise moment for when the seismic event occurred.

Adios

You really don't have the slightest idea of what Mackey's talking about, do you?

Last edited by pomeroo; 3rd February 2008 at 08:40 PM.
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 4th February 2008, 06:51 AM   #467
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Just to be clear, I would like to list my criticisms of Jones's paper:
  1. In section 2 (Methods), the authors fail to specify whether the detector on the SEM is a silicon lithium Si(Li) detector or a silicon drift detector (SDD). This is actually quite important since the SDD has a high instance of coincidence peaking which can cause misidentification of certain elements. Looking at the spectra, it appears to be a Si(Li) detector, but that's an educated guess at best.
  2. On page 2, in the section "Results", the author states, "The spherules found in the WTC dust were predominately iron-rich" without supporting his contention with a statistical analysis of the iron content of the particles available for analysis. He might mean that the particles he analyzed were iron rich, but that indicates heavy operator bias in selecting particles.
  3. The author makes no mention of the particle correction routine used to determine the composition of the particles. He further makes no indication of standards collected, or of calibrations run to determine what the relative deviation of a standardless particle quant would be. This is an extremely important point. Jones is reporting "approximate" particle compositions to one decimal place, indicating that his analysis has a deviation of +/- 0.1%. It, of course, would be helpful if Jones were to actually report the actual two standard normal deviation, but I think we've already established that such considerations are for real research papers, not Jones's dreck. Anyway, J.T. Armstrong in Electron Probe Quantitation (pp 296) reported 2 standard deviations for particle analysis using conventional ZAF corrections as +/- 55% relative. In the case of the iron composition given as a caption in Figure 3, it should read Fe = 10.7% +/- 5.9%.
  4. The caption under figure 4 states "The Fe-S-Al-O signature is striking, nothing like the signature of structural steel." This is a particularly appalling statement intending to somehow imply that all of the iron rich spherules from his "dust sample" had to be from structural steel or gypsum. Similar to what Dr. Greening has already pointed out, we can't simply assume that the only source of iron in the WTC dust was from steel. Nor can we assume that the temperatures necessary to vaporize the individual constituent elements of those spheres is what caused them to form in the first place. I mentioned rice husk ash in an earlier post which has an abundance of iron rich particles despite rather low burning temperatures. Crazy Chainsaw has also provided information regarding the vaporization of molybdenum at temperatures far below those required to vaporize the pure constituent metal.
  5. The caption under figure 5 states "The O/Fe ratio of 1.5 suggests that Fe2O3 is present, iron (III) oxide." Regarding my analysis in point 3, Jones can not state with any certainty that the O/Fe ratio is actually 1.5. Furthermore, Jones seems completely unaware that hydrogen atoms are not fluoresced during XEDS. This means that Jones cannot, with any certainty, determine if the particles are Fe2O3 or Fe(OH)2,3,4 or any variant thereof.
  6. On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample. The USGS report's purpose was not to comment on the source of the iron rich spheres. In fact, I can't imagine why any researcher, when presented with a sample of ash from a building fire would think twice about finding iron.
  7. On page 4, Jones reports, "A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 Liberty Street shows a “mean of composition” of “Fe spheres” of 5.87% which is very high compared with “Fe spheres” found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% [1]." Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you that Jones has decided to compare apples to oranges. He has chosen to compare the composition of ordinary building dust to ash from a building fire. And he thinks it's strange. Lunacy.
  8. The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. Of course, this argument is completely useless unless you compare the results to a similar office fire or across a series of office fires. Jones is expecting the scientific community at large to believe that such elements are not found in office fires because he says so.
  9. Finally, the appendix notes where Jones got his samples from. I'm sorry, but I honestly can't understand how any legitimate scientist could possibly believe the validity of Jones's source. There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center. Suffice it to say that such forensic handling would certainly not be admissible in any court.
Anyway, that's the nuts and bolts of it. Jones has done an excellent job of writing a report that gives the appearance of scientific validity with absolutely no science to back it up. He has utterly neglected standardized analysis methods, ignored forensic evidence gathering techniques, and has based his argument on nothing more than his personal opinion. There is absolutely no reason to accept any of Jones's conclusions or results.
I posted these questions to Dr. Jones. Here is his reply. Much apologies if it has been posted already:

1. Si(Li) detector
2. The question leaves out the last part of the very SENTENCE quoted. to generate a straw man. Quote the rest, and then re-phrase the question fairly.
3. We have run a series of measurements on Fe2O3, to determine the accuracy of the EDAX system. +/- 55% is totally exaggerated and incorrect for this system, nor can I see any justification for using 2 standard deviations -- why does the author use 2 sigma instead of one? We have the data, a short paper to follow will provide detailed analysis.
4. What? We did not imply any such thing. (Straw man.)
5. See 3 above. The ratio of 1.5 is a reasonable indicator based on those measurements -- we used the term "suggests".
6. What?
"On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample."
Logic is incomplete, please explain. USGS giving no explanation for these spheres does not mean that I reject the possibility that fires caused this ash sample.
7. This is not apples and oranges or "lunacy" to compare the iron-rich sphere content in WTC dust with that in ordinary dust, or explain why you state this. Ad hominem ("lunacy") and faulty logic unless explained.
More later, sorry time is limited and I have another appointment. You may wish also to query a co-author, as there are EIGHT authors, not just one.
8. "The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. "
Show me where in the paper we say anything about VAPORIZATION of metals to form spheres. It's not there! This guy has not read the paper carefully evidently -- or just likes to invent straw-man arguments.

9. "There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center."

Why does the author say this? Pls explain why you don't think the dust samples are from the WTC. And how about the WTC dust samples discussed by USGS and RJ Lee? Why do these various samples show iron-rich spheres, if there is something wrong with our samples? Why the agreement as to findings in the various samples?
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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 4th February 2008, 09:50 AM   #468
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I posted these questions to Dr. Jones. Here is his reply. Much apologies if it has been posted already:

1. Si(Li) detector
2. The question leaves out the last part of the very SENTENCE quoted. to generate a straw man. Quote the rest, and then re-phrase the question fairly.
3. We have run a series of measurements on Fe2O3, to determine the accuracy of the EDAX system. +/- 55% is totally exaggerated and incorrect for this system, nor can I see any justification for using 2 standard deviations -- why does the author use 2 sigma instead of one? We have the data, a short paper to follow will provide detailed analysis.
4. What? We did not imply any such thing. (Straw man.)
5. See 3 above. The ratio of 1.5 is a reasonable indicator based on those measurements -- we used the term "suggests".
6. What?
"On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample."
Logic is incomplete, please explain. USGS giving no explanation for these spheres does not mean that I reject the possibility that fires caused this ash sample.
7. This is not apples and oranges or "lunacy" to compare the iron-rich sphere content in WTC dust with that in ordinary dust, or explain why you state this. Ad hominem ("lunacy") and faulty logic unless explained.
More later, sorry time is limited and I have another appointment. You may wish also to query a co-author, as there are EIGHT authors, not just one.
8. "The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. "
Show me where in the paper we say anything about VAPORIZATION of metals to form spheres. It's not there! This guy has not read the paper carefully evidently -- or just likes to invent straw-man arguments.

9. "There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center."

Why does the author say this? Pls explain why you don't think the dust samples are from the WTC. And how about the WTC dust samples discussed by USGS and RJ Lee? Why do these various samples show iron-rich spheres, if there is something wrong with our samples? Why the agreement as to findings in the various samples?
Since I can now recreate the spheres , as they would have been created in the fires does it matter, Iron Micro spheres can be create by iron oxide or Iron chloride, suspended in hot gases at as little as 900c during recrystallization the Micro spheres tend to form round spheres because of their own plastic behavior.
The critical temperature is not the point where they become molten but he point where the Crystalline bonding of the crystals deteriorates.
That is why reduction and oxidation reactions can occur at as little as 900c.


The dear Doctors Spheres if formed in the fires are evidence of back draft carbon monoxide and hydrogen explosions, natural events in Hydrocarbon fires with heated steam, both type of Micro spheres would be formed is such a fire as the towers it is to be expected.
This by the way comes from experimental data, I am not sure but I think such back-draft and Hydrogen events in the fires by mixing in a wave compression front can produce sufficient over pressures to form he amount of Micro spheres seen.
Dr. Jone is hand waving when he said theses spheres were created from high temperatures, I have done the experiment and paid the price for the knowledge I have gained my back hurts like H$LL, so if the spheres are not manufactured then your answer is that Dr. Jones has discovered that there were back Draft explosions in a hydrocarbon and Carbohydrate fire with reactive metals.
There is no reason to believe these spheres and the materials shown are not normal occurrences of high energy events such as the collapses of the twin towers, on 9/11/2001.
That is why this makes me laugh now, I have expected a Whole range of these events to be published by Dr. Jones, however I wonder if he would be interested in the fact that one of my experiments actually formed silicon carbide?

I know that Silicon carbide sand paper was in the material that I burned however since it Melts at temperatures around 2730°C how was it melted in a fire involving only Wood, and Diesel fuel, as the main fuels with just plastics and metals?

Of course I know how it was formed, I only want to ask you if you have the knowledge to figure it yourself?

PS. Unless you can prevent fires and building collapse like occured on Sept, 11/2001 Your going to have micro sphere fromation in said fires, and your going to have high temperatures in the rubble piles, such are unavoidable in those enviroments.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 4th February 2008 at 09:59 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 4th February 2008, 11:57 AM   #469
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
I posted these questions to Dr. Jones. Here is his reply. Much apologies if it has been posted already:
Thank you for doing this Swing Dangler.
Quote:
1. Si(Li) detector
2. The question leaves out the last part of the very SENTENCE quoted. to generate a straw man. Quote the rest, and then re-phrase the question fairly.
That's quite a dodge. My point was that said sentence:
Quote:
The spherules found in the WTC dust were predominately iron-rich (appearing metallic) and silicates (appearing glassy under an optical microscope).
implies that the entirety of the WTC dust was analyzed. Were it analyzed, I should have seen some sort of chart stating how many particles were found and what their appearances were. We need to know the total number of particles analyzed and what methods were used to determine the composition of the particles. My strong suspicion is that only a handful of particles were actually analyzed in house, and that's not nearly enough to make any sort of determination on the sample set as a whole.
Quote:
3. We have run a series of measurements on Fe2O3, to determine the accuracy of the EDAX system.
Sorry Dr. Jones, I'm not taking your word for anything. Show the data, do the statistics and get back to me.
Quote:
+/- 55% is totally exaggerated and incorrect for this system,
It's fine if you want to make stuff up, but the value I quoted is part of a legitimately published work. Armstrong's work is considered seminal in terms of particle analysis.
Quote:
nor can I see any justification for using 2 standard deviations -- why does the author use 2 sigma instead of one? We have the data, a short paper to follow will provide detailed analysis.
Why did you not include the data in your paper? Do you not understand how to write for a legitimate scientific publication?

Dr. Jones seems to have missed my original point. So let me restate it: He is using a bulk corrections model, without standards in order to acquire his data. That introduces at least 2 forms of error, the first from standardless analysis (+/- 10~20% relative), the second is from bulk vs. particle correction models (+/- 15~30% relative for 1 standard deviation). That makes the values Jones has quoted to be nothing short of meaningless. It further makes his analysis of the data presented in the caption for Figure 5 also meaningless.
Quote:
4. What? We did not imply any such thing. (Straw man.)
Then why mention structural steel at all? I can assure you the particle has a composition far closer to some fly ash or rice husk ash particles, so why mention structural steel?
Quote:
5. See 3 above. The ratio of 1.5 is a reasonable indicator based on those measurements -- we used the term "suggests".
Closing your eyes and plugging your ears while saying "LA LA LA LA" is not an acceptable form of scientific rebuttal. Whenever I see the word "suggests", it tells me that the authors were too lazy or incompetent to check further into the matter. Your thesis largely rests on the idea that the temperatures necessary to create said spherules were too high. It matters whether or not you have Fe2O3 or Fe(OH)2, and your Table 1 uses the temperature to melt Fe2O3. You are the one who has changed in approximate result into an exact one by assuming that your analysis proves the presence of Fe2O3.
Quote:
6. What?
"On page 4, Jones reports the following, "No explanation for the presence of these iron-rich and silicate spheres (which imply very high temperatures along with droplet formation) is given in the published USGS reports." This is further evidence that he simply rejects the possibility that fires caused this ash sample."
Logic is incomplete, please explain. USGS giving no explanation for these spheres does not mean that I reject the possibility that fires caused this ash sample.
The entirety of your work rests upon the idea that the the fires were not hot enough to generate the particles found in the WTC dust. The USGS did, in fact, provide an explanation for how the particles were formed.

Now why do you not mention anywhere in your paper about the possibility that all of the particles are part of normal fire / household ash?
Quote:
7. This is not apples and oranges or "lunacy" to compare the iron-rich sphere content in WTC dust with that in ordinary dust, or explain why you state this. Ad hominem ("lunacy") and faulty logic unless explained.
While it would be an ad hom to call Dr. Jones a lunatic, it is not ad hom to call the argument lunacy. My criticism comes from the abysmally small sample set you have.
Quote:
8. "The next several pages operate on the following argument: Because the temperature required to vaporize a pure metal is really high, these spheres cannot form in normal office fires. "
Show me where in the paper we say anything about VAPORIZATION of metals to form spheres. It's not there! This guy has not read the paper carefully evidently -- or just likes to invent straw-man arguments.
I will admit my mistake here. I should have said "melted" rather than "vaporized." My argument still stands, however. The paper does rest on the idea that, because the temperature required to melt the various constituent metals of the particles you chose to analyze, then the particles could not have been created as part of the WTC fire and collapse. My criticism of your point is that you have chosen not to compare any of your data to those ash particles found in similarly intense office building fires. Nor have you chosen to compare the data to fly ash or other fire formed particles. Care to address this?
Quote:
9. "There is absolutely no reason to believe that Jones's "WTC Dust" samples are from the actual World Trade Center."

Why does the author say this? Pls explain why you don't think the dust samples are from the WTC.
Your sample set was collected from the interior of an apartment 4 blocks from the site, 3 days after the collapse. You followed no protocols of evidence gathering. Your sample has introduced bias based on distance traveled and a contaminated collection site.

In discussions with Dr. Greening, I would be willing to accept that the majority of the particles you have collected are from the WTC, but I'm not willing to accept that anomalous particles were required to come from the WTC. Next time, get someone who knows how to collect samples.
Quote:
And how about the WTC dust samples discussed by USGS and RJ Lee? Why do these various samples show iron-rich spheres, if there is something wrong with our samples? Why the agreement as to findings in the various samples?
Let me be clear about this: I believe iron rich spheres are part of normal, building fire created ash. That does not mean that you collected the particles in any way that would cause it to be acceptable as a forensic investigation. You don't simply get to look at other researchers' data, slap your name on it, and then come up with a different conclusion. That's not science.


While I appreciate your efforts on this, Swing, I will not be spending any more time on Jones.
__________________
"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 4th February 2008, 12:12 PM   #470
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Publish it!

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Since I can now recreate the spheres , as they would have been created in the fires does it matter, Iron Micro spheres can be create by iron oxide or Iron chloride, suspended in hot gases at as little as 900c during recrystallization the Micro spheres tend to form round spheres because of their own plastic behavior.
The critical temperature is not the point where they become molten but he point where the Crystalline bonding of the crystals deteriorates.
That is why reduction and oxidation reactions can occur at as little as 900c.


The dear Doctors Spheres if formed in the fires are evidence of back draft carbon monoxide and hydrogen explosions, natural events in Hydrocarbon fires with heated steam, both type of Micro spheres would be formed is such a fire as the towers it is to be expected.
This by the way comes from experimental data, I am not sure but I think such back-draft and Hydrogen events in the fires by mixing in a wave compression front can produce sufficient over pressures to form he amount of Micro spheres seen.
Dr. Jone is hand waving when he said theses spheres were created from high temperatures, I have done the experiment and paid the price for the knowledge I have gained my back hurts like H$LL, so if the spheres are not manufactured then your answer is that Dr. Jones has discovered that there were back Draft explosions in a hydrocarbon and Carbohydrate fire with reactive metals.
There is no reason to believe these spheres and the materials shown are not normal occurrences of high energy events such as the collapses of the twin towers, on 9/11/2001.
That is why this makes me laugh now, I have expected a Whole range of these events to be published by Dr. Jones, however I wonder if he would be interested in the fact that one of my experiments actually formed silicon carbide?

I know that Silicon carbide sand paper was in the material that I burned however since it Melts at temperatures around 2730°C how was it melted in a fire involving only Wood, and Diesel fuel, as the main fuels with just plastics and metals?

Of course I know how it was formed, I only want to ask you if you have the knowledge to figure it yourself?

PS. Unless you can prevent fires and building collapse like occured on Sept, 11/2001 Your going to have micro sphere fromation in said fires, and your going to have high temperatures in the rubble piles, such are unavoidable in those enviroments.
If you could, publish your experiments and then submit it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies it would certainly be appreciated.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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 4th February 2008, 12:18 PM   #471
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,498
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
If you could, publish your experiments and then submit it to the Journal of 9/11 Studies it would certainly be appreciated.
I think those at JREF would be interested in maintaining some level of credibility.

Submitting work to a laughable, fraudulent Troofer website pretending it's an academic journal is not how one builds scientific credibility.

Unless, of course, you're a Troofer.
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith
Good Lt 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 4th February 2008, 12:30 PM   #472
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Thank you for doing this Swing Dangler.
Your welcome.


Quote:
Your sample set was collected from the interior of an apartment 4 blocks from the site, 3 days after the collapse. You followed no protocols of evidence gathering. Your sample has introduced bias based on distance traveled and a contaminated collection site.
Here is where I disagree with this criticism. I would argue that the same protocol is the one the USGS followed as described below.
Sample collection in the World Trade Center area, Sept 17-18, 2001

A 2-person USGS crew collected grab samples from 35 localities within a 0.5 - 1 km radius circle centered on the World trade Center site on the evenings of September 17 and 18, 2001 (see sample collection map, below).

Many of the streets bordering the collection locations were cleaned or were in the process of being cleaned at the time of sample collection. Given this limitation, collection of dust samples was restricted to undisturbed window ledges, car windshields, flower pots, protected areas in door entry ways, and steps. Occasionally, samples were collected from the sidewalk adjacent to walls that were afforded some degree of protection from the elements and cleanup process. -Source USGS Here.

Quote:
Let me be clear about this: I believe iron rich spheres are part of normal, building fire created ash. That does not mean that you collected the particles in any way that would cause it to be acceptable as a forensic investigation. You don't simply get to look at other researchers' data, slap your name on it, and then come up with a different conclusion. That's not science.
This critique is absolute nonsense of course. The collection procedure was nearly identical to the USGS collection method. I would argue they would have an even cleaner sample due to the time frame of Jone's collection date. They are not "slapping" their name on the USGS research only comparing their samples with the USGS samples.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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 4th February 2008, 12:35 PM   #473
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
Originally Posted by Good Lt View Post
I think those at JREF would be interested in maintaining some level of credibility.

Submitting work to a laughable, fraudulent Troofer website pretending it's an academic journal is not how one builds scientific credibility.

Unless, of course, you're a Troofer.
Or he could publish it in another journal or even in "whitepaper" form so that he could compete with the tour guide and Rmackey.

The paper's credibility should rest on its own laurels of course and not where it is published.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times
Swing Dangler 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 4th February 2008, 12:46 PM   #474
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
 
BenBurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one.
Posts: 37,535
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Or he could publish it in another journal or even in "whitepaper" form so that he could compete with the tour guide and Rmackey.

The paper's credibility should rest on its own laurels of course and not where it is published.
That has "Stundie" written all over it. Welcome to my ignore file.
__________________
For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?
BenBurch 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 4th February 2008, 01:02 PM   #475
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
gotta love the slap in the face "tour guide" comment. Then they whine about calling them idiots or truthers....

Not that Mark would mind the label, as it is his job, and I am sure he loves it, but it seems that the truth movement use it when they want to belittle Mark and his abilities.

Shame really...but expected.

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 4th February 2008, 01:11 PM   #476
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Or he could publish it in another journal or even in "whitepaper" form so that he could compete with the tour guide and Rmackey.

The paper's credibility should rest on its own laurels of course and not where it is published.
Why, the experiments have always been to satisfy my own curiosity, however they are so simple that anyone willing to risk being blown up could do them. It is the not being blown up part that is the hard part.

OH and Swing Dangler it only required the ignition of steel at 3000c some how that melted the Silicon carbide, and formed the globule there is even a trace amount of black material in it that is probably iron Fe 304, however I thought that silicon carbide could not be melted, it is supposed to burn in an oxygen atmosphere at that temperature it is used as a deoxidizing agent in steel making.
It could also be a remnant left in the steel that melted from the steel making process, I was surprised to find it.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 4th February 2008, 01:16 PM   #477
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,842
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
Or he could publish it in another journal or even in "whitepaper" form so that he could compete with the tour guide and Rmackey.

The paper's credibility should rest on its own laurels of course and not where it is published.
Why, the experiments have always been to satisfy my own curiosity, however they are so simple that anyone willing to risk being blown up could do them. It is the not being blown up part that is the hard part.

OH and Swing Dangler it only required the ignition of steel at 3000c some how that melted the Silicon carbide, and formed the globule there is even a trace amount of black material in it that is probably iron Fe 304, however I thought that silicon carbide could not be melted, it is supposed to burn in an oxygen atmosphere at that temperature it is used as a deoxidizing agent in steel making.
It could also be a remnant left in the steel that melted from the steel making process, I was surprised to find it.
Crazy Chainsaw 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 4th February 2008, 04:05 PM   #478
mortimer
NWO Janitor
 
mortimer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,518
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
This critique is absolute nonsense of course. The collection procedure was nearly identical to the USGS collection method. I would argue they would have an even cleaner sample due to the time frame of Jone's collection date. They are not "slapping" their name on the USGS research only comparing their samples with the USGS samples.
Wha? In what way is collecting a single sample from a single location inside an apartment "nearly identical" to collecting samples from 35 different sites?

Boggles the mind.
__________________
"why would i bother?" - Bikerdruid, on providing evidence for his claims
"I view hamas as an organization fighting for the freedom of its people." - Bikerdruid
mortimer 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 4th February 2008, 05:22 PM   #479
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by mortimer View Post
Wha? In what way is collecting a single sample from a single location inside an apartment "nearly identical" to collecting samples from 35 different sites?

Boggles the mind.
I believe this is in regards to the sampling method ie; grab samples. It cleverly ignores the fact that the sampling population (2) in his was no where near the USGS's 35. For purposes of statistical analysis 2 is terrible. 35 isn't so hot either mind you...

Out of curiosity is there any comparison made between samples taken downwind and upwind?
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 4th February 2008, 05:40 PM   #480
Sizzler
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,562
Apollo and Mackey;

I just got my account set up at 911blogger. I want Jones to address the questions you raised.

Is it ok if I cut and paste some of your responses? He mentioned that he would be responding to questions around this time.
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
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 03:23 PM.
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.