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 19th August 2012, 11:18 AM   #2281
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,775
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I am not questioning its authenticity. I am questioning its logic and scientific validity. As are others.
If you took chemistry and if you were able to talk to real scientist, instead of spewing nonsense, you would understand iron spheres in fires are common. But you will not take action, you will post more nonsense, nothing, and remain in ignorance.

You don't care, otherwise you would do the work to verify the information. BIG hint: you don't show the skills so far to glean useful information using your current techniques, what ever they maybe. It appears you do zero research past repeating lies from the nuts in 911 truth.

Why can't you verify anything?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2012, 05:42 PM   #2282
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein, why has Ron Wieck not followed through on this, as he said he would?

Why, as so-called "skeptics", are none of you inquiring into this bizarre non-explanation?
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 29th August 2012 at 05:44 PM.
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 29th August 2012, 06:08 PM   #2283
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

Why, as so-called "skeptics", are none of you inquiring into this bizarre non-explanation?
Speaking for myself. It's really a non-issue. Iron rich micro-spheres are common and in no way an indicator of, well anything. Basically, who cares?
__________________
"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 29th August 2012, 06:20 PM   #2284
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein, why has Ron Wieck not followed through on this, as he said he would?

Why, as so-called "skeptics", are none of you inquiring into this bizarre non-explanation?
Ron told me that he did try to get a response from RJ Lee, but didn't get one. I am merely relaying the message here, so don't shoot me.
I don't consider this as bizarre.
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 29th August 2012, 07:28 PM   #2285
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It's been five months and we still have not heard back from RJ Lee regarding their letter positing hurricane winds and blast-furnace-like temperatures acting on rust flakes to produce microspheres in the WTC dust.

Interesting. So much for Ron Wieck's brand of "investigative journalism."
Since it can be shown that iron microspheres can be produced by "zero wind, a bic lighter & a steel brillo pad", what idiot said that it required "hurricane winds & blast furnace-like temperatures" to produce them??

Let me take a wild guess...
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2012, 10:41 PM   #2286
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Ron told me that he did try to get a response from RJ Lee, but didn't get one. I am merely relaying the message here, so don't shoot me.
I don't consider this as bizarre.
You don't consider it explanatory, either.

Why, if such spheres and other kinds of melted and boiled particles are created through common fire events, wouldn't RJ Lee simply have said this? Why invent rust flakes, hurricane winds and blast-furnace like temperatures? Why is Jim Millette looking further into the microspheres if they are as common as melted Brillo pads?
__________________
“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 30th August 2012, 01:58 AM   #2287
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You don't consider it explanatory, either.

Why, if such spheres and other kinds of melted and boiled particles are created through common fire events, wouldn't RJ Lee simply have said this? Why invent rust flakes, hurricane winds and blast-furnace like temperatures? Why is Jim Millette looking further into the microspheres if they are as common as melted Brillo pads?
Correct, I think that RJ Lee shot some unnecessary just-so story from the hip, and forgot the obvious: microspheres are common in many types of ashes. Also, their high value of almost 6% by weight is an outlier; dust samples from many other locations showed the usual 1.5-2.5% or so concentration of iron.

Millette is doing it in response to the Harrit paper, on Chris Mohr's request, and that's driven by mere s cientific curiosity, and not to acknpwledge the twoofer notion that microspheres somehow "mean" anything with regard to collapse initiation mode.

Twoofers claim, without actually making a complete argument, that iron microspheres were created by thermite and nothing else. Ergo, can you confirm that this is indeed what twoofers like you claim?
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 30th August 2012, 05:18 AM   #2288
Voodoosix
Thinker
 
Voodoosix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 152
dont welders and electrical shorts produce these "spheres" as well?
Voodoosix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 07:56 AM   #2289
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Lots of processes do. Questions are: How much? And what are we actually talking about chemically - pure iron, iron oxide, or mixed bags of stuff with notable iron content?

Twoofer try to make it appear as if a major proportion - 6%?? - of the dust was pure, spherical iron, and pretend that thermite is the only explanation.

Well.

There were probably 50,000 tons of dust spilled all over Manhattan. 6% of that is 3,000 tons. Add to that any amount of bulk molten steel that Twoofers also like to wank about.

The thermite that makes twoofers all wet is Fe2O3 + 2 Al, and it reacts to 2 Fe + Al2O3. By weight, that's 52% iron, 48% alumina, or roughly 50:50. So we are talking about 6,000 tons of thermite here.

And we are talking about 3,000 tons, or 6% by weight in the dust, of alumina.

Truthers, who marvel at the high concentration of iron spheres in the dust and claim it comes from thermite, apparently never wonder why there wasn't an equal amount (by weight; twice as much by volume) of alumina also found in all the dust samples.
  • RJ Lee didn't find lots of Al (the same table that has the infamous just under 6% iron spheres shows "Hi Temp Si/Al-rich" particles as 0.54% by weight - typically about half of that could be described as AlxOy).
  • Lioy e.al. found the total Al concentration in three dust samples to be under 0.1%.
  • McGee e.al. found between 0.6% and 2.4% Al in the smallest fraction (<2.5 µm) of WTC dust - this is signifacntly less than the Al concentration found in several non-NYC control samples (Washington DC ambient air; oil fly ash; Mount Saint Helens ash).


In summary: Truthers have no explanation for iron microspheres that isn't contradicted by other evidence, such as the low concentration of Al, and the absence of alumina spheres.
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 30th August 2012, 02:58 PM   #2290
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You don't consider it explanatory, either.

Why, if such spheres and other kinds of melted and boiled particles are created through common fire events, wouldn't RJ Lee simply have said this? Why invent rust flakes, hurricane winds and blast-furnace like temperatures? Why is Jim Millette looking further into the microspheres if they are as common as melted Brillo pads?
Notice your above comment is questioning the questioners, not admitting the iron spheres as "not evidence." Since they are common, the real question would be why truthers still insist on seeing them as evidence of anything?
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 09:48 PM   #2291
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Lots of processes do. Questions are: How much? And what are we actually talking about chemically - pure iron, iron oxide, or mixed bags of stuff with notable iron content?

Twoofer try to make it appear as if a major proportion - 6%?? - of the dust was pure, spherical iron, and pretend that thermite is the only explanation.

Well.

There were probably 50,000 tons of dust spilled all over Manhattan. 6% of that is 3,000 tons. Add to that any amount of bulk molten steel that Twoofers also like to wank about.

The thermite that makes twoofers all wet is Fe2O3 + 2 Al, and it reacts to 2 Fe + Al2O3. By weight, that's 52% iron, 48% alumina, or roughly 50:50. So we are talking about 6,000 tons of thermite here.

And we are talking about 3,000 tons, or 6% by weight in the dust, of alumina.

Truthers, who marvel at the high concentration of iron spheres in the dust and claim it comes from thermite, apparently never wonder why there wasn't an equal amount (by weight; twice as much by volume) of alumina also found in all the dust samples.
  • RJ Lee didn't find lots of Al (the same table that has the infamous just under 6% iron spheres shows "Hi Temp Si/Al-rich" particles as 0.54% by weight - typically about half of that could be described as AlxOy).
  • Lioy e.al. found the total Al concentration in three dust samples to be under 0.1%.
  • McGee e.al. found between 0.6% and 2.4% Al in the smallest fraction (<2.5 µm) of WTC dust - this is signifacntly less than the Al concentration found in several non-NYC control samples (Washington DC ambient air; oil fly ash; Mount Saint Helens ash).


In summary: Truthers have no explanation for iron microspheres that isn't contradicted by other evidence, such as the low concentration of Al, and the absence of alumina spheres.
If by some chance, Jones or Harrit ever try to peddle their bilge in my neighborhood, I want to ask them two questions (unless I have to pay to get in):

1. Have you checked for the presence of aluminum oxide? If not, why not? If aluminum oxide is absent, to what do attribute this?

2. Have you checked for the presence of actual paint chips? If not, why not? If you did, how did you test for paint chips, and how do they differ from thermite?
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2012, 11:28 PM   #2292
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Correct, I think that RJ Lee shot some unnecessary just-so story from the hip, and forgot the obvious: microspheres are common in many types of ashes. Also, their high value of almost 6% by weight is an outlier; dust samples from many other locations showed the usual 1.5-2.5% or so concentration of iron.
You think RJ Lee Group "forgot" that microspheres are common products of common fires? Heh.


Quote:
Millette is doing it in response to the Harrit paper, on Chris Mohr's request, and that's driven by mere s cientific curiosity, and not to acknpwledge the twoofer notion that microspheres somehow "mean" anything with regard to collapse initiation mode.
This is highly unlikely. Millette has already fulfilled his obligation to Chris Mohr. He no more needs to investigate a phenomenon that folks like yourselves declare is "commonplace" than he needs to, in your minds, do a DSC test. If he has already, to your minds, "proven" that there was no thermitic material in the WTC dust, and won't even do a DSC test to replicate the findings he is attempting to disprove, why would he go into further study of something that is, to your minds, "unremarkable"? According to his own stated findings, there is no need to study the microspheres, just as there is "no need" to do DSC. So why do one and not the other?

If some of you actually made some effort to apply consistency in the so-called logic that you like to use, you might ask yourselves tahe same question. But you don't. And you don't.
__________________
“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 30th August 2012, 11:35 PM   #2293
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Voodoosix View Post
dont welders and electrical shorts produce these "spheres" as well?
Are you old enough to remember the opening credits to NYPD Blue? Drums beating & subway train flying down the tracks, giving off lots of sparks. Steel wheels on steel rails. What temp do you think those type of sparks are?

Ever heard of commutator arcing in motors? Arcing in contacts?

LOTS of processes produce arcs between metals. Lots of times, those metals are steel or other iron alloys.
tfk 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 31st August 2012, 12:15 AM   #2294
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You think RJ Lee Group "forgot" that microspheres are common products of common fires? Heh.
Certainly not. Or else their report would not have contained this:
Quote:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
Many years later now, someone asked Rich to explain "iron-sphere", and the relatively high concentration of supposedly almost 6%. I think what Rich forgot there, when he made up a vivid story for the layman who asked him, was that a) the spheres are usually iron-rich, not iron and b) their value is an extreme outlier, compared to what other researchers found.

So there really wasn't anything to be explained. Rich wasn't wise to try and come up with something.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This is highly unlikely. Millette has already fulfilled his obligation to Chris Mohr. ...
True, but Chris is a charming man and asked Millette about it, and perhaps Millette is a nice man and still does it, even though it goes beyond his obligation.
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 1st September 2012, 11:37 AM   #2295
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Many years later now, someone asked Rich to explain "iron-sphere", and the relatively high concentration of supposedly almost 6%. I think what Rich forgot there, when he made up a vivid story for the layman who asked him, was that a) the spheres are usually iron-rich, not iron and b) their value is an extreme outlier, compared to what other researchers found.
So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.
__________________
“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 1st September 2012, 11:40 AM   #2296
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
True, but Chris is a charming man and asked Millette about it, and perhaps Millette is a nice man and still does it, even though it goes beyond his obligation.
What would Chris have asked Millette about the microspheres, and what would Millette be investigating about them?
__________________
“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 1st September 2012, 11:50 AM   #2297
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,775
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.
You never been in a high-rise fire on multiple floor with a damaged building. You don't do science, which has you unable to grasp why iron-rich spheres are formed in fire. You refuse to gain knowledge, you prefer to troll posting nonsense on 911. Like your moon size debris field physics, your post fail to make a rational point.

Why do you insist on remaining in ignorance on 911?
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 1st September 2012, 12:17 PM   #2298
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
What would Chris have asked Millette about the microspheres, and what would Millette be investigating about them?
Hi Ergo,

Last year I asked Jim Millette what the source of these particular iron-rich spheres are that appear in the WTC dust. Millette himself had reported on them years ago in an EPA Report he worked on, if I'm not mistaken. When I asked him about the spheres, he said, yes, that has not been thoroughly researched and I would like to include that in my final report.

Millette is scrupulously neutral and never makes statements or draws conclusions until the experimental evidence is in. He may yet research the actual source of these microspheres if he ever fulfills his desire to put out a full scale published peer reviewed report on the WTC dust.

Unfortunately, he also explained to me that now that the project is unfunded, it has to take a back seat to his paid commitments at his lab. In addition, an employee who took a strong interest in this would work on it whenever it was a slow day at the office, so progress was made just because that employee took on some of the work. Now that this employee has changed jobs, no one on his staff is taking as strong an interest in it. The final results are not yet in, but that's where we are as of September 1....
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 September 2012, 09:13 AM   #2299
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.
I think RJ Lee or his staff shot something from the hip that isn't quite thought through. So in that sense, yes, I think to some extent they "made up" a "vivid story". It ain't totally wrong in describing some of the conditions and that these might add somewhat to the level of microspheres commonly and expectedly found in the dust, but leaving the impression this is the explanation sine qua non wasn't wise - all in my opinion.

If you want to disagree and rather believe that RJ Lee did not "make up" a "vivid story", in other words told a true, factual and significant story, well, that is your prerogative.

RJ Lee certainly understand that iron-rich microspheres are abundant. common an expected in most kind of ashes, including those from building fires[1], and they certainly understand well that the WTC was an extreme case of such fires, resulting in very high amounts of ashes with significant amounts of these things so common in such ashes.


[1] The McCrone Particla Atlas, Volume III, Edition Two (Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1973), which is probably the standard reference for any scientist who wishes to identify the origin of dust particles, shows fractions of various types of ashes on pages 775 to 780. Of the 18 examples presented there, more than half have spheres specifically pointed out, 13 are dominated by Al, Si and Fe (this is mostly scanning a variety of particles shown in the SEM images; O and C were not measured with the 1973 equipment).
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 2nd September 2012, 02:15 PM   #2300
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.
Funny how you are overlooking Ron's error in the first place. Why would he claim "iron-rich micro-spheres" were unique and proof of something when they weren't?
Robrob 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 6th September 2012, 10:37 PM   #2301
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Last year I asked Jim Millette what the source of these particular iron-rich spheres are that appear in the WTC dust. Millette himself had reported on them years ago in an EPA Report he worked on, if I'm not mistaken. When I asked him about the spheres, he said, yes, that has not been thoroughly researched and I would like to include that in my final report.

Millette is scrupulously neutral and never makes statements or draws conclusions until the experimental evidence is in. He may yet research the actual source of these microspheres if he ever fulfills his desire to put out a full scale published peer reviewed report on the WTC dust.

Thanks for your reply, Chris. It was my understanding that Millette did not, in fact, report on the microspheres in his first WTC dust study, which is why your selection of him for this so-called replication was regarded with skepticism. Do you have some new information about this?

My question also remains: If iron-rich microspheres are not unusual or controversial in any way, why would Millette want to more thoroughly research them?
__________________
“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 7th September 2012, 06:38 AM   #2302
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thanks for your reply, Chris. It was my understanding that Millette did not, in fact, report on the microspheres in his first WTC dust study, which is why your selection of him for this so-called replication was regarded with skepticism. Do you have some new information about this?

My question also remains: If iron-rich microspheres are not unusual or controversial in any way, why would Millette want to more thoroughly research them?
Hi Ergo,

You are a victim of Kevin Ryan's gross distortions, accusations and falsehoods against Millette, as I reported long ago in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3435

From there check out posts 3436 and 3437 immediately following them. In the post I linked above I have extensive quotes from Millette's work that show him to be a man of integrity whose reports did NOT fabricate false data or avoid the facts. Kevin's distortions remain a part of the 9/11 Truth lore, and many people have told me they trust Kevin's integrity and so they believe him and not me. I hope you will check my links and read all three of these posts to get the truth.

Millette's interest in the iron-rich microspheres is part of his general acknowledgement that there are still aspects of the properties of the WTC dust that have not been thoroughly studied. As a specialist in analyzing dust and an extremely thorough person, he is focusing on specific areas that have not been thoroughly experimented on. For example, RJ Lee simply said the iron-rich spheres are to be expected, and later wrote a speculative letter about their actual source. If Millette does his iron-rich sphere experiments, he can come to more solid conclusions, as he already has by proving beyond a doubt that there is no thermitic material in the WTC red-gray chips of dust he studied.

Please take the time to read all three of my posts starting with the one I've linked for you. You'll see that Kevin Ryan is the source of your misunderstanding about Millette.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 7th September 2012, 08:14 PM   #2303
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Thank you for the link to Millette's first paper. However, to ignore the spherical shape of the iron particles found in the dust is to ignore the processes by which they were formed. As well, if iron microspheres are so unremarkable, then it would have been routine for Millette to have mentioned them in that study, along with all the other particles.

You say as well that Millette "reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron" but I don't see where he says that in the article you linked to. Can you provide a quote for that?
__________________
“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 7th September 2012, 08:44 PM   #2304
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Thank you for the link to Millette's first paper. However, to ignore the spherical shape of the iron particles found in the dust is to ignore the processes by which they were formed. As well, if iron microspheres are so unremarkable, then it would have been routine for Millette to have mentioned them in that study, along with all the other particles.

You say as well that Millette "reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron" but I don't see where he says that in the article you linked to. Can you provide a quote for that?
From my post: " “…the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials.” He reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron but didn’t specifically use the term “iron-rich microspheres.” Is it fair to call that “deception”?

Now since he was analyzing dust, it was my words when I said he was talking about dust-sized particles. It seemed like not too big a leap to say that someone analyzing dust reported on dust-sized particles. If it were big blonbs of iron, for exampele, that would not be dust.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 7th September 2012, 09:13 PM   #2305
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Well, let's be clear on what he said. He did not say "dust-sized iron particles" anywhere in that article. Nor did he "report on large quantities" of such. He mentioned that "SEM ... analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium" and that they analyzed "chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments" and "iron-chromium particles". That's all he mentions.

So on the one hand you accuse Kevin Ryan of being deceptive, but I can't help but notice that you yourself have misrepresented what Millette originally reported on.
__________________
“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 7th September 2012, 09:43 PM   #2306
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,775
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

http://blog.machinedesign.com/Machin...acy-theorists/

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=95

Kevin Ryan, is an expert on being a paranoid conspiracy theorist on 911 issues.

911 truth followers fail to do the research to save them from spreading lies they plagiarize from paranoid conspiracy nuts. Iron rich spheres, many sources, and no thermite found at the WTC.
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 8th September 2012, 07:46 AM   #2307
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Well, let's be clear on what he said. He did not say "dust-sized iron particles" anywhere in that article. Nor did he "report on large quantities" of such. He mentioned that "SEM ... analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium" and that they analyzed "chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments" and "iron-chromium particles". That's all he mentions.

So on the one hand you accuse Kevin Ryan of being deceptive, but I can't help but notice that you yourself have misrepresented what Millette originally reported on.
Wrong. When analyzing dust it is reasonable to say that the particles being analyzed were dust-sized. "Large signals" for iron can be interpreted in lay terms to mean that Millette duly reported lots of iron in his findings on the WTC dust but merely did not report on the spherical shape. Kevin Ryan insinuates that Millette was deliberately decpetive in not mentioning the iron microspheres.

What I said are not distortions, they are summaries in lay language. Kevin Ryan did not correctly summarize what Millette said or what was said about Millette. It was a false ad hominem attack. Please acknowledge that that is what he did after re-reading my posts.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 8th September 2012, 09:44 AM   #2308
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
I'm pretty sure Ergo is JAQing off until he finds a Gotcha, like post 2306. Problem is, even when he does, it's either wrong or irrelevant. I'm not sure if he's being disingenuous or he honestly doesn't understand, but ignoring posts like 2300 is rather suspect.
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 9th September 2012, 09:28 AM   #2309
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Wrong. When analyzing dust it is reasonable to say that the particles being analyzed were dust-sized. "Large signals" for iron can be interpreted in lay terms to mean that Millette duly reported lots of iron in his findings
And lots of calcium, too. "Large quantities" of dust-sized calcium particles.

Come to think of it, it's beginning to sound like a breakfast cereal...


Quote:
but merely did not report on the spherical shape.
And I've already commented on why ignoring the spherical shape seeks to ignore the process by which they were formed.


Quote:
Kevin Ryan insinuates that Millette was deliberately decpetive in not mentioning the iron microspheres.
Sorry, Kevin Ryan is right. Millette did not mention anything about iron microspheres. That is a fact.


Quote:
What I said are not distortions, they are summaries in lay language.
Saved for posterity.


Quote:
Kevin Ryan did not correctly summarize what Millette said or what was said about Millette.
Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, Stephen Kennedy, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.

Last edited by ergo; 9th September 2012 at 09:29 AM.
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 9th September 2012, 09:33 AM   #2310
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,775
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
... Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.
False, the USGS didn't not report a "large quantities" of iron micro-spheres. Prove it! SOURCE please.

If you can't give page numbers and sources, you are trolling, spreading your plagiarized lies you accept without evidence.

Spreading lies; why?

When 911 truth brings up iron micro-spheres, they expose their ignorance. 11 years and 911 truth can't figure out 911. The only product of 911 truth remains fantasy lies and delusional claims. Why are you 911 truth followers so anti-science?


Prove it, source by page numbers with the data.
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 9th September 2012, 07:46 PM   #2311
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
And lots of calcium, too. "Large quantities" of dust-sized calcium particles.

Come to think of it, it's beginning to sound like a breakfast cereal...




And I've already commented on why ignoring the spherical shape seeks to ignore the process by which they were formed.




Sorry, Kevin Ryan is right. Millette did not mention anything about iron microspheres. That is a fact.




Saved for posterity.




Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, Stephen Kennedy, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.
Kevin Ryan is wrong as sin. Look at my links again and you'll see how he distorted Cate Jenkins, who said Millette's research had a high level of integrity, and made it sound like Millette was guilty of deliberate distortion. he is not. He was doing a study for the EPA on the environmental hazards of the WTC dust. The shape of the iron microspheres was not relevant to that study, and he duly reported high readings for iron. Kevin Ryan said he ignored the iron but he didn't.

Look Ergo, I have stood up for Richard Gage and other 9/11 Truth people repeatedly on thread after thread here on JREF. Gotten some people real frustrated with me too. It's your turn. Stop being an apologist for Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks. Look over what I said about Cate Jenkins and tell me the truth: was Kevin Ryan being honest in his insinuations and attacks against Millette? No. He was not. You lose all credibility when you try to tell me Kevin Ryan is being honest here. He is not.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 27th September 2012, 04:12 PM   #2312
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,953
Sorry to dig this up, and perhaps this is not exactly news. But Major_Tom has documented for posterity an email-exchange between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on Jones's "microspheres" discoveries and how to interprete them that took place in the northern winter 2007/08:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=186:186

It is mostly Greening explaining the many species of oxides, silicates and what not of Fe, Al, Ca, K and others that are found in all kinds of ashes and why they form spheres well under the melting point of the pure substances, and Jones asking stupid rhetorical questions and eventually abandoning the debate.
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 27th September 2012, 04:42 PM   #2313
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Sorry to dig this up, and perhaps this is not exactly news. But Major_Tom has documented for posterity an email-exchange between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on Jones's "microspheres" discoveries and how to interprete them that took place in the northern winter 2007/08:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=186:186

It is mostly Greening explaining the many species of oxides, silicates and what not of Fe, Al, Ca, K and others that are found in all kinds of ashes and why they form spheres well under the melting point of the pure substances, and Jones asking stupid rhetorical questions and eventually abandoning the debate.
That will be a valuable reference if anyone ever writes up a history of the Truthers as part of a study of science quackery.
Redwood 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 27th September 2012, 05:08 PM   #2314
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
It's actually an inconclusive debate, and the way it is presented chronologically makes it hard to follow. At least, though, it is a debate between two competent scientists.

It should also be noted that Frank Greening, co-author to Bazant of the now infamous and thoroughly ridiculed and debunked "crush-down, crush-up" model of the WTC collapses, also speculated that ammonium perchlorate in the Towers' spray-on fireproofing might create the kind of demolition we see.
__________________
“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 27th September 2012, 07:01 PM   #2315
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
It's actually an inconclusive debate, and the way it is presented chronologically makes it hard to follow. At least, though, it is a debate between two competent scientists.

It should also be noted that Frank Greening, co-author to Bazant of the now infamous and thoroughly ridiculed and debunked "crush-down, crush-up" model of the WTC collapses, also speculated that ammonium perchlorate in the Towers' spray-on fireproofing might create the kind of demolition we see.
Yes, and just remember:

Inconclusive = you have no proof they mean anything.
__________________
"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 28th September 2012, 03:22 AM   #2316
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Yes, and just remember:

Inconclusive = you have no proof they mean anything.
It's almost as if he wants so desperately to believe in magic nanothermite(/)explosives, he's ignoring all the other evidence against their existence.
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 28th September 2012, 07:00 AM   #2317
fitzgibbon
Master Poster
 
fitzgibbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Just west of the centre of the universe
Posts: 2,830
Originally Posted by 000063 View Post
It's almost as if he wants so desperately to believe in magic nanothermite(/)explosives, he's ignoring all the other evidence against their existence.
Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz
__________________
"Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business! So if you want the truth... Go to God!"
Howard Beale, "Network"
fitzgibbon 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 28th September 2012, 09:24 AM   #2318
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz
Did it ever leave the faith stage???
__________________
"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 28th September 2012, 10:07 AM   #2319
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by fitzgibbon View Post
Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz
"Next"?
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 1st October 2012, 07:14 AM   #2320
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Three weeks ago I challenged Ergo: "was Kevin Ryan being honest in his insinuations and attacks against Millette? No. He was not. You lose all credibility when you try to tell me Kevin Ryan is being honest here. He is not." I was referring to this:

"You are a victim of Kevin Ryan's gross distortions, accusations and falsehoods against Millette, as I reported long ago in this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3435
From there check out posts 3436 and 3437 immediately following them. In the post I linked above I have extensive quotes from Millette's work that show him to be a man of integrity whose reports did NOT fabricate false data or avoid the facts. Kevin's distortions remain a part of the 9/11 Truth lore, and many people have told me they trust Kevin's integrity and so they believe him and not me. I hope you will check my links and read all three of these posts to get the truth."

I retract my statement that Ergo is a "victim" of Kevin Ryan's gross distortions. I exposed Ergo to these distortions and have repeatedly asked him to acknowledge what I have revealed. Ergo compared Millette's non-reportage on the SHAPE of the iron microspheres to Ryan's egregious lies and ad hominem attacks, asserted Millette is a liar while Ryan is not, and has still refused to acknowledge what Ryan did, which I exposed in these old posts of mine.

Ergo, you are no victim. You are willfully evading the truth and you don't deserve the moniker "truther" because truth is not what you care about.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 07:40 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.