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.
Tags iron microspheres

Reply
Old 13th February 2012, 12:59 AM   #1441
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on.
Havig been through about twenty of the sort of storm that we knew inLibya as a "ghibli," I find your assertion laughable. For hours after the storm had moved through, there would still be dust in the air, getting into every bloody thing, even between plates stacked inside a cupboard in ther mess hall.

Sorry, I can't just let you tell me things that conflict with what I have seen with my own Mark I eyeballs.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
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 13th February 2012, 12:59 AM   #1442
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started, so even your theory has enormous holes in it.
I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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 13th February 2012, 01:43 AM   #1443
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by C7
But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Some iron oxide forms in the forging and rolling processes. This is a black iron oxide that is reduced at lower temperature than is the red oxide. Some red oxide starts forming almost as fast as the steel is exposed to air with any humidity. The primer just seals it and stops the process right there.
It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer.

There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws.

Quote:
Even soot will fall out of a plume of smoke.
Eventually. Look at the videos. The smoke, which is soot, was carried down wind.

Quote:
Bear in mind that the fires were still raging and producing smoke when collapse started
Only the spheres [if there were any] in the smoke still in the building would be caught up in the dust. And of course, the ones that adhered to surfaces.
Christopher7 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 13th February 2012, 01:54 AM   #1444
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The RJ Lee group analysis used the "TP-01: Protocol for the Monitoring of Non-Biological Indoor Environmental Contaminants" which consist of wipes and a dust lift.
The USGS crew collected grab samples.

This could account for the discrepancy. And/or more heavy particles were deposited in the gash area.

The dust cloud caused by the destruction of the towers was made of very thick dust that was forced throughout the building. A light breeze could only carry the tiniest iron spheres a significant distance and any light enough to make it to the Bank building would likely continue on.
You are pathetically grasping at the flimsiest of straws, while studiously ignoring large portions of the post you responded to.

I see I must repeat some of the stuff and ask you to read it now, and acknoledge you read and tried to understand:

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Make sure you take a close look at the maps of sampling locations, the tables with more detailed results, and take note of the calendar dates when the sampling was done. I also recommend looking up the references provided by Jenkins.


C7, please acknowledge that you now know that WTC dust immediately after 9/11 did NOT contain even nearly 6% iron, that the mean is consistently close to 1% in several studies, that not even a single sample at a single location came near 6%, and that therefor the RJ Lee value of 5.87% is an extreme outlier and not explainable by a large amount of thermite in the towers. And that you now consider the possibilities that this outlier could be an error, or not mean what you think i means, or can be best explained be the deposition of additional iron durng the 9 months after the collapse dust had settled on 9/11.


Later in the paper, he works with additional data about airborne iron (aerosols) measured in the months after 9/11. Using his references, I found a database of the EPA data and downloaded the measurements at a location on Liberty Street; from that raw data is my value for aberage iron content of air on Liberty which may have precipitated into RJ Lee's dust.

...
Remember I did the work and showd my assumptions? Do you remember that you did not refute a single of my assumptions, and corrected none of my work?

If you read the RJ Lee report in context, you will find that this Table 3, that reports 5.87% iron spheres, refers not to inaccessible locations in the Building, but to accessible surfaces in the open Gash in the front of the building.
At least tell me that you have abandonded the unsupportably claim that 5.87% iron sphere is typical for inaccessible areas of the building!
Oystein 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 13th February 2012, 02:48 AM   #1445
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.
of course not. It can, however, reduce it by the bloomerie method.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
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 13th February 2012, 02:55 AM   #1446
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
acknoledge you read
I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old.


That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.
Christopher7 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 13th February 2012, 04:08 AM   #1447
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.
[/b]
You make a demand that I believe you know can't be met - Ron is banned from the JREF.
I am in personal contact with Ron, but won't subject myself to mean-spirited put-downs by you in the 100% certain case that Ron verifies personally to me that the letter is genuine.

Back to ignore with the pathetic troll.

Last edited by Oystein; 13th February 2012 at 04:13 AM. Reason: added two words in blue
Oystein 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 13th February 2012, 06:39 AM   #1448
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise;
Gravity-driven, after a collapse of the floors above induced by fire and impact. Someone on PoliticalForum estimated that the collapsing floors hit the lower section with thirty times their regular weight. In other words, more than the weight of both intact buildings put together, Mr. "moon-sized rubble".

Quote:
an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement,
I've already posted two links showing several of the elevator shafts ran the length of the building, though the elevators themselves were staggered.

Quote:
blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one.
"Selected floors"? Selected by who? The alleged conspirators? Suddenly instead of being impossible, it's actually evidence supporting your position? Fire was even travelling between shafts.

And, of course, your personal baseless incredulity is not affirmative evidence of thermite or explosives or even something fishy.
000063 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 13th February 2012, 06:47 AM   #1449
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old.


That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.
Why don't you personally just call RJ Lee yourself Chris if you feel their behaviour is so weird?
Edx 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 13th February 2012, 06:52 AM   #1450
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I read it. No comment. You just like to put up long posts with lots of questions to divert from the point at hand. If I don't respond it's because I have already responded or don't feel it's worth responding to, so don't keep repeating like a 3 year old.


That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.

I'd like to hear from Ron Wieck and have him go on record as having gotten that letter from RJ Lee.
Have you made any effort to contact him or Lee yourself? Or do you plan to just demand others contact him, so you can call them liars, as you basically have now? Because I've noticed a lot of sophists are very reluctant to seek evidence that is bad for their arguments, especially when they know they made the claim without evidence in the first place. In fact, some of them will actually mock the people requesting evidence for not being able to do their own research*, or try to dodge the question by asking it of the questioner.

If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?

*Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.

Last edited by 000063; 13th February 2012 at 06:54 AM.
000063 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 13th February 2012, 07:06 AM   #1451
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
[quote]
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
As amusing as this discussion could be, it's irrelevant.

The RJ Lee samples were taken from all sections of the building, including from spaces where dust did not passively deposit. Unless you can show some schematic how these microspheres from the steel cutting hundreds of feet below, that need to also chemically match the spheres in the dust, made their way up and through the entire building in concentrations that altered the iron content far above those of any of the other studies, and also made their way into enclosed spaces, this is just grasping.
Its you that is obsessing about the dust........its you that wants a "new investigation" so its you that has to convince us you have a case.....sorry but so far you just have a big fail......

Quote:
Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise; an illustration of how the "fireball" from the plane impacts traveled down through the elevators into the basement, blowing out the lobby and only a few other selected floors, I don't think I'll hold my breath for this one.
Why would we make models? Its you that wants something.......I'm a professional engineer and I have no problems with any of the above so quite why I should care less if you hold your breathe or not is beyond me......
sheeplesnshills 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 13th February 2012, 07:10 AM   #1452
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
Have you made any effort to contact him or Lee yourself? Or do you plan to just demand others contact him, so you can call them liars, as you basically have now? Because I've noticed a lot of sophists are very reluctant to seek evidence that is bad for their arguments, especially when they know they made the claim without evidence in the first place. In fact, some of them will actually mock the people requesting evidence for not being able to do their own research*, or try to dodge the question by asking it of the questioner.

If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?

*Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.
This is one of the fall back positions for the truthers - faked evidence. When presented with evidence that destroys his position, the truther will claim it is fabricated so he does not need to address it.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 13th February 2012, 07:13 AM   #1453
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
If Lee or the Lee Group didn't write the letter, who did? Are they deliberately misrepresenting (lying) the letter as being written by Lee?

*Which is ironic, since one's opposition should not have to provide evidence one claims one has, and expecting them to do so is actually expecting them to do one's research for one.
In fact if it it isnt really an official response from RJ Lee, then Chris, since he is so sure of himself, should call RJ Lee themselves and tell them there are people impersonating them and should start legal proceedings against Ron.

But we know he wont do that.
Edx 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 13th February 2012, 07:15 AM   #1454
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
I thought both sides have already agreed that office fires can't melt steel.
Try and keep up......we are talking about the melting of Iron compounds, alloys and oxides. Rust is an Iron Oxide.
sheeplesnshills 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 13th February 2012, 07:23 AM   #1455
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
This is one of the fall back positions for the truthers - faked evidence. When presented with evidence that destroys his position, the truther will claim it is fabricated so he does not need to address it.
Their troubleshooting always seem to leave out the single most important factor in why their theory doesn't jive with the evidence.

The theory is wrong
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 13th February 2012, 07:43 AM   #1456
Fizzard
Student
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
That letter supposedly from RJ Lee is dumb. The hypothesis is absurd, uninformed speculation.
Last time I visited this thread, Christopher7 regarded RJ Lee's word as incontestable holy scripture.

Now it's "absurd, uninformed speculation."

Wha' happened?
Fizzard 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 13th February 2012, 07:57 AM   #1457
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,794
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Their troubleshooting always seem to leave out the single most important factor in why their theory doesn't jive with the evidence.

The theory is wrong
More basic than that, they do not even have a real theory. If you have not had the pleasure of reading through Chris' ever flexible story on thermite, nanothermite, explosives, explosive nanothermite, etc, feel free to look through his thread if you enjoy pain.

Many truthers say they have a theory, but all have failed to actually flesh one out with detail yet have the balls to complain that NIST, etc failed to give enough information. For example, Ergo promised a comprehensive theory probably a year ago, but he has never delivered and contents himself with trolling threads.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief 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 13th February 2012, 07:58 AM   #1458
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
n/m
brazenlilraisin 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 13th February 2012, 08:04 AM   #1459
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Fizzard View Post
Last time I visited this thread, Christopher7 regarded RJ Lee's word as incontestable holy scripture.

Now it's "absurd, uninformed speculation."

Wha' happened?
Simple. Since it contradicts him, it's "absurd, uninformed speculation.", and therefore cannot be from Lee.
000063 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 13th February 2012, 08:12 AM   #1460
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
More basic than that, they do not even have a real theory. If you have not had the pleasure of reading through Chris' ever flexible story on thermite, nanothermite, explosives, explosive nanothermite, etc, feel free to look through his thread if you enjoy pain.

Many truthers say they have a theory, but all have failed to actually flesh one out with detail yet have the balls to complain that NIST, etc failed to give enough information. For example, Ergo promised a comprehensive theory probably a year ago, but he has never delivered and contents himself with trolling threads.
Great point. I always thought the first thing you do in trying to understand what you observe is to create a model to explain the observations. They never got to step one. Therefore, they will never understand the obsrvations.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB 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 13th February 2012, 01:57 PM   #1461
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Rust scale and rust on the WTC1,2 primed steel



Rust and rust scale on primed steel at the WTC1,2. From fireproofing inspections.


Quote:
Originally Posted by C7
But this does point out that the hypothesis in the letter is dumb. There was no rust to flake and melt because the columns had a coat of primer to prevent that.
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
It takes a while for iron oxide to form in an appreciable amount. The amount of rust is minute when they primer.

There is no mention of primer in the letter. Whoever wrote it is uninformed and grasping at straws.
Wrong.

Quote:
I inspected core columns up to the 78th floor but was unable to access them above that point. These inspections revealed that the bond of fireproofing on core columns had failed in many locations and the fireproofing was falling off the columns in floor-high sheets. Photo 3, taken in 1994, shows a core column from which the fireproofing had fallen off in a sheet that is several stories high. The red circle and date was the Port Authority's response to the missing fireproofing. This resulted because the steel had not been properly prepared at the time of the initial spray application. Rust scale had not been removed prior to applying the fireproofing. The fireproofing had adhered well to the rust scale, but the rust was coming loose from the steel (photo 4). of the rust, indicating that the rust existed at the time the fireproofing was applied.

Quote:
The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts. This is a defect that would have been easily discovered by the ASTM adhesion and cohesion quality assurance test, had this standard existed at the time of construction......
Quote:
Test conditions, however, do not match actual conditions in the field. Insulation adhesion may be ineffective because of rust. Frequently, insulation is applied to rusted metal that has not been properly treated before application; the insulation's consistency may vary; its application may be inconsistent; or it may be dislodged during original and new construction and maintenance.
The steel was primed and rusted.





http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-155/issue-10/world-trade-center-disaster/volume-ii-the-ruins-and-the-rebirth/fireproofing-at-the-wtc-towers.html
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 13th February 2012 at 02:13 PM.
BasqueArch 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 13th February 2012, 04:01 PM   #1462
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less.

This layer is detrimental to the steel for a number of reasons but primarily because the oxide scale is incoherent with the parent metal due to a large difference in atomic lattice parameters. (that's why rust on steel flakes off but oxide on aluminium and titanium and most other metals doesn't) Effectively what this means is that it flakes off exposing fresh steel underneath which then rusts. If you paint over mill-scale then the paint is essentially worthless because the mill-scale will spall (technical term for flaking) taking the paint with it thus losing any corrosion protection.

Mill-scale also causes problems when welding - you don't want brittle, sharp particles of mill-scale in the weld because this is detrimental. This is one of the reasons why ship builders used to leave steel from the rolling mill out in the open so that it would "weather", i.e. the mill-scale would fall off through handling, temperature differences etc, which is where we get the traditional term "weathered steel" from. After this had happened the steel can then be used to weld after the usual grinding of the surfaces to be welded.

Mill-scale is removed from the steel at the rolling mill by one of 2 or 3 methods Iirc; via mechanical stress, thermal stress or acid pickling. An oxide layer is still present but that layer is more coherent with the parent metal and will not flake off as readily. That layer is much thinner.

There is no way to stop rust on construction steel exposed to the elements and that's why protection is needed. Paint is the cheapest option. It is also more economical and easier to apply paint in a controlled environment prior to assembly depending upon the building specifications obviously. In this instance primer paint has one use and that is to protect the steel from corrosion. It has no factor regarding resistance to elevated temperatures (and by that I mean above normal parameters in the building specifications). Paint is so thin that even if it ignites and burns at a temperature as low as 100C it is not going to have any effect whatsoever on the mechanical properties of the steel. Fire-proofing is what protects the steel. If the fire-proofing is compromised either through it's removal or the fire burning past it's rating then the steel has far more problems than a thin layer of paint burning on it's surface.

LaClade primer paint was applied to the trusses in the factory via an electro-static process which has been detailed in this thread.

So what happens to steel that's been painted with primer paint when it's subjected to higher temperatures above normal? Well we know this because steel has been studied for over 100 years. NIST also carried out experiments and for this purpose it doesn't matter which type of primer paint is applied it's what happens to the steel's surface that counts.



Effectively what we are seeing here is the spallation (flaking off) of the steel's oxide layer taking the paint with it due to thermal stress differences between the oxide layer and the steel underneath. It's essentially like the spalling of mill-scale and one can argue that the thickness of the oxide layer has increased due to the elevated temperature of 650C which isn't far from the AC3 temperature.

It's clear from the above photo that paint is peeling from the surface and thin flakes of oxidised steel are being liberated from the steel's surface. These flakes are very thin with large surface to volume ratios just like steel wool.

Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this.

See Bloomery.

Quote:
In operation, the bloomery is preheated by burning charcoal, and once hot, iron ore and additional charcoal are introduced through the top, in a roughly one to one ratio. Inside the furnace, carbon monoxide from the incomplete combustion of the charcoal reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore. As the desired product of a bloomery is iron which is easily forgeable, nearly pure, and with a low carbon content, the temperature and ratio of charcoal to iron ore must be carefully controlled to keep the iron from absorbing too much carbon and thus becoming unforgeable. Because the bloomery is self-fluxing the addition of limestone is not required to form a slag.
In effect a steel's surface, no matter whether it's structural steel or conduit or wire or whatever, subjected to a fire; whose fuel is a hydrocarbon such as jet fuel and office furnishings will undergo this same chemical reaction at the temperatures at which such a fire is capable of producing.

The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected. The only reason that these by-products are argued over by truthers is the fact that such by-products were identified in environmental studies.

We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.

There is absolutely no reason to use therm*te to explain such phenomena.
Sunstealer 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 13th February 2012, 04:10 PM   #1463
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Judging by the utter failure of bedunkers in the past to ever produce models that could support their bizarre stretches of logic, e.g., a rubble-driven destruction of 80 - 90 storeys of steel-framed highrise



Wrong again...

And again:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


ETA and again
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 13th February 2012 at 04:24 PM.
alienentity 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 13th February 2012, 10:20 PM   #1464
riptowtan
Thinker
 
riptowtan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 186
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post


Wrong again...

And again:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


ETA and again
Wow. I didn't know a simulation like this existed. Thanks for posting this! This will make a great visual aid when debating truthers.
riptowtan 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 14th February 2012, 01:36 AM   #1465
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns.

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.
Christopher7 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 14th February 2012, 02:10 AM   #1466
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
All low alloyed or plain carbon steels develop mill-scale during the rolling process at the rolling mill due to the temperatures at which the steel is formed into shape by rolling. Mill-scale is the formation of iron oxide on the steel's surface and is typically 1mm thick or less.
1mm = 0.04 inches

Quote:
Hydrocarbons when burnt will produce CO and CO2. It is well understood that Carbon will reduce iron oxides below the melting point of Fe and below the oxide melting temperature. Mankind has been using this process since the Iron Age. Anyone who has looked into Iron production will know this.

See Bloomery.

In operation, the bloomery reduces the iron oxides in the ore to metallic iron, without melting the ore; this allows the bloomery to operate at lower temperatures than the melting temperature of the ore.
iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

Iron ore:
magnetite (Fe3O4), hematite (Fe2O3), goethite (FeO(OH)), limonite (FeO(OH).n(H2O)) or siderite (FeCO3).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore

Melting point of magnetite/Iron oxide (Fe3O4) 1538oC - 2800oF
http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/...on-oxide-fe3o4

Melting point of iron oxide/rust (Fe
2O3) 1566oC - 2850oF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%28III%29_oxide


Iron must melt and then be atomized to produce iron spheres.

The bloomery process does NOT melt the iron in the ore and therefore it cannot produce iron spheres.


Quote:
The production of "iron rich micro-spheres" in such a situation is to be expected.
Wrong, as noted above.

Quote:
We also have environmental studies from coal and municipal solid waste (MSW) incinerators that operate below the temperatures required to melt pure Fe. Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.
Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Fine particles: Particulates also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid.


Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.
Christopher7 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 14th February 2012, 02:34 AM   #1467
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,772
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.
Thus, no micro-spheres in the dust. Final Quixotic statement?

"my name... prepare to die", from laughter ; you live in a fictional world.

10 years, no clue office fires make micro-spheres, and these are found in the dust. When you get a PhD in fire science, will you retract your delusions?

Last edited by beachnut; 14th February 2012 at 03:07 AM.
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 14th February 2012, 02:38 AM   #1468
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.
Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
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 14th February 2012, 02:46 AM   #1469
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Balderdash. There were super-heated, oxygen-poor gases from the combustion of Class A fuels. Much of this was conducted up the chimneys formed by the opening up of the core. When those hot gases hit the fresh oxygen rising through the core, they would have to have ignited again, perhaps explosively.
Source?
Christopher7 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 14th February 2012, 03:29 AM   #1470
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,772
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Source?
fire science

It happens in my wood stove...
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 14th February 2012, 04:00 AM   #1471
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Source?


I cannot believe you could be this ignorant and actually have the years of experience that you claim to have in the building trades.

I hardly have time here to give you the entire course in Fire Science 101. If you have evidence to show that any of the principles that I identify for you are in error, please do so. Most of them are as basic and time-tested as Newton's laws of thermodynamics.

Steel looses its strength, thus its ability to support loads, at temperatures in the range of 1000 F.

A fire in flash-over excedes temperatures of 1000 F.

Thus, we can draw certain conclusions based on what we can observe.

Flammable gases generated by the heating of Class A and Class B fuels in a fire will, after a certain concentration is achieved, cease to burn, but will, upon the introduction of oxygen, or the escape of these gases into an oxygen-rich environment, re-ignite, sometimes explosively, resulting in a phenomenon called "backdraft."

The combustion of flammable gases will release more energy than will the combustion of the solid from which these gases are derived because no energy is absorbed in initiating the combustion.

We have observed that the fires were in flashover. We have observed that fire protection measures within the structures had been compromised.

Everything else that I have stated follows from these statements. We can, for example, conclude that the blasts in the basement and lobby were the result of hot, flammable gases meeting a supply of oxygen at locations where elevator doors were standing open. Because this is going to be random in any building of this type and size, secondary blast damage from backdraught will be random.

Don't just stand there and tell everybody that this is not so. Cite your sources that it is not. As it stands, we are now in a situation where a carpenter is telling veteran fire fighters that he has a better understanding of fire science than they have.

I might point out, as well, that turds like DRG and MacQueen do the same thing.

They are speaking outside their areas of competency, through their trousers.

DRG is the hardest of the lot to excuse, since he has spent most of his adult years blathering about how people come to believe what they believe. I must, therefor, conclude that his is as competent to discuss theology as S. Jones showed himself to be with his pathetic paper "Behold My Hands."

Uncle Fetzer is even less respectable because his work is all about the way that the human mind processes data to acquire knowledge, yet he fails to notice the holes in Judy Woo-woo's scribblings or the fact that she fell for "the Hutchison Effect."
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

Last edited by leftysergeant; 14th February 2012 at 04:53 AM. Reason: typos
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 14th February 2012, 04:42 AM   #1472
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thank you for the info. These problems were no doubt corrected on an ongoing basis but your point is made that there was rust on some of the columns.

However, the point is moot because there was nothing to burn in the elevator shafts and much [NIST says all] the fireproofing was knocked off on the floors where the planes hit.
Wrong again. You don't read or comprehend well. From the same post you reference:
Quote:
The result was that the fireproofing adhered loosely to the columns and would fall off in large sheets. This defect was never corrected and still existed in June 2000 and probably at the time of the plane crashes. It is possible the fireproofing was missing from sections of columns on the impact floors or that some or all of the loosely adhered fireproofing fell off with the force of the impacts.
The inspections were "non-destructive", meaning limited to what was visible without removing coverings. The porous fireproofing absorbs moisture like a sponge, exacerbating the corrosion of the steel.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
.......Fly ash is one of the residues generated in combustion, and comprises the fine particles that rise with the flue gases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash

Fine particles: Particulates – also known as particulate matter (PM), suspended particulate matter (SPM), fine particles, and soot – are tiny subdivisions of solid matter suspended in a gas or liquid.


Any microspheres created as part of fly ash from burning office contents would fly away in the smoke along with all the other particulate matter.
Why would the same microspheres created by thermxte not fly away in the smoke.

Sunstealer and RJ Lee are right. You and Jones are wrong.
Quote:
Sunstealer: Those studies indicate the presence of such "iron rich microspheres" produced from Fe, its oxides and man-made alloys that are subjected to similar temperatures and reducing conditions that were present in the WTC 1,2,7 and other fire affected buildings.
Existing evidence proves ferrospheres (and many other microspheres) and volatile lead are produced at less than 1200C, less than the melting point of iron and its oxides and less than the vaporization temperature of lead, and collected in the fly ash as shown in my previous incinerator link.

There is no evidence that thermxte was used to produce ferrospheres and volatile lead.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 14th February 2012 at 04:53 AM.
BasqueArch 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 14th February 2012, 05:59 AM   #1473
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled.

We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse.

Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose.

POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.
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 14th February 2012, 06:29 AM   #1474
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
So, the SFRM was falling off by itself and the primer appears not to have been applied in a fully-competent manner. Sunstealer mentions that mill scale does not hold paint especially well. It appears to me, from the photo shown elsewhere of paint peeling from the steel that the steel in the towers was not very well descaled.

We might also stop here and re-address the mechanisms by which primer would be removed from the steel during the fire or the collapse.

Heat will clearly cause the epoxy to oxidize or eveporate. Abrasion during the collapse will scrape some of it loose.

POUNDING will dislodge some of the paint. Certainly, every structural element in the building was subject to considerable pounding, thus accounting for the bits of La Clede primer being beaten loose from the trusses. When you pound on stee hard enough to dislodge paint, you are going to dislodge some of the mill scale as well.
BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.
Oystein 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 14th February 2012, 07:17 AM   #1475
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

iron oxide becomes metallic iron at roughly 1250C, almost 300 degrees below iron's melting point of 1538C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting
Wow I suppose you ought to inform the people who wrote this paper that they are wrong then.

http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/engin...1-5-0012-2.pdf

Quote:
E ffect of Temperature

Reduction experiments of the composite pellets were carried out at 900, 950, 1000, 1050 and 1100C with di fferent coal consumption ratios. Figures 2 and 3 show the e ffect of temperature on the degree of reduction
for Cfix / Fe total ratios of 0.17 and 0.38. As seen in the figures, the amount of reduction increases, for both Cfix / Fe total ratios, as the temperature increases.

As seen in Figure 3, a reduction period of approximately 60 minutes is satisfactory to reach a reduction degree of 0.7 at 1100C, while it takes 110
minutes to reach the same degree of reduction at 900C. A 22% increase in temperature reduces the reduction period about 45%. At the same temperature, on the other hand, for a degree of reduction of
0.5, a 22% increase in temperature causes a 67% decrease in time required for reduction. As seen, longer reduction periods are required at lower temperatures in order to reach the same reduction, and this period increases with the degree of reduction.

Reduction of iron oxides occurs either by carbon or by carbon monoxide, formed by the gasification of carbon. The reduction process carried out by the carbon is called "direct reduction":

FenOm + mC = nFe + mCO (2)

while the reduction process conducted with CO is
called "indirect reduction":

FenOm + mCO = nFe + mCO2 (3) mCO2 + mC = 2mCO (Boudouard Reaction)
(4)

The overall reaction involves a cyclic mechanism in which CO2 reduced as a result of the reduction of iron oxides gasifi es carbon to generate CO, which
in turn produces CO2 through oxide reduction. The reduction and gasifi cation reactions are thus necessarily coupled.
Now I know you won't accept this so lets try another one. Fancy contacting these people and telling them that they are wrong aswell?

Quote:
Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) of the reduction of Fe2O3 in a continuous stream of 100% CO was conducted at temperatures ranging from 800 to 900 C. X-ray diffraction analysis of solids identified the presence of iron, graphite and a carbide of iron as the products of reactions. A kinetic model based on the first-order irreversible rate kinetics was developed and fitted to the TGA data so as to estimate the rate constants for each reduction reaction. The reaction pathways considered in this analysis involved reduction of iron oxides, Boudouard reaction and iron-carbide formation. The rate parameters were calculated and compared with data reported in literature.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...7838200400044X

Apology accepted C7.

Christ don't you get tired of being shown to be wrong on just about everything? You should have learnt by now that I can back everything I say with sources.

Accept that iron oxides can be reduced below 1000C well within the temperature obtained in office fires. Stop being a martyr, you're making yourself look like a fool. Accept it and move on.
Sunstealer 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 14th February 2012, 11:30 AM   #1476
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum?

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?
__________________
Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 14th February 2012, 11:32 AM   #1477
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
BENDING of steel members will induce tensions that can break up an oxidized surface. The floor trusses, being thinner, would have experienced more bending than the columns, and also possibly more pounding and grinding.
Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".
__________________
Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo 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 14th February 2012, 11:34 AM   #1478
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Usk, Wales
Posts: 26,160
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm confused.
Nominated.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 14th February 2012, 11:35 AM   #1479
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,724
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I'm confused. Isn't iron reduction a completely different chemical process than that required to produce metal-rich microspheres? What is the relevance of this discussion to the melting of iron or iron oxide into microspheres? What is the relevance of this to the melting or vaporization of lead and molybdenum?

Why does Sunstealer think he's now not only just debunked Chris7, but also apparently RJ Lee, Frank Greening and all of 9/'11 bedunkerdom?
That's right, You're confused.

I think this is the first time you've admitted this. You're making progress.

__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 14th February 2012, 11:36 AM   #1480
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Yeah, in the whole 0.16 seconds each floor had to experience all this "grinding".
Yet another fantastic argument from incredulity. Klunkity klunk!
grandmastershek 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 03:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.