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 Mark Basile , nanothermite

Reply
Old 18th March 2012, 11:19 AM   #521
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
In my blog, Oystein's 9/11 debates, I just posted a lengthy article that exlains Basile's quantification of his XEDS data and why that proves his lucky chip #13 is not thermitic by nature:

How Mark Basile confirms that red-gray chips are not thermitic

Beware: It contains a lot of math

A discussion of this:


I fine-tuned the numbers from previous posts. For example, the elements add up to 100% there, but hydrogen is missing, because it can't be detected by XEDS. Hydrocarbons have typically at least 1 H-atom per C-atom, or 1 part by weight hydrogen for 12 parts carbon. So since there is 72% carbon, you'd have to add at least 6% hydrogen, bringing the total up to 106% or more. Conversely, adding an appropriate amount of H has the effect of reducing all other weight-%s by a factor of 100/106.

The low amount of 2.63% iron in Basile's samples means that at most 4.74% of his red layer could possibly thermite. Since most hydrocarbons have an energy density of at least 15 kJ/g, almost four times that of thermite, and since there is more than 18 times as much hydrocarbon in the chips than thermite, this results in at most 1.4% (but more realistally less than 1%(*)) of the heat of reaction coming from thermite when you burn the chip.

In other words: almost all(*) the heat comes from hydrocarbon combustion(**) - Basile proves it.

If, as the thread title claims, "Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results", then all he does is confirm that Harrit's red-gray chips, too, are not thermitic.

We knew that all along, but it's nice to have it confirmed



ETA Footnote:
(*) "<1%" of course includes the possibility of "=0%". Similarly, "almost all" is meant to imply the possibility of "fully all".
(**) And possibly further reactions other than the thermite reaction

Last edited by Oystein; 18th March 2012 at 11:25 AM. Reason: ETA footnote
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 18th March 2012, 03:57 PM   #522
fourtoe
Graduate Poster
 
fourtoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Since when do hand-waving pronouncements count as refutation? Wake me when debunkers actually publish a scientific response (paper or even a letter) to Harrit's paper.
Hey guy, it's pretty much happening now. You said to let you know so, well, here we are.
__________________
***My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.***
-Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda
-I sooo have a blog.
-The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!
fourtoe 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 18th March 2012, 07:41 PM   #523
dc1971
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Since when do hand-waving pronouncements count as refutation? Wake me when debunkers actually publish a scientific response (paper or even a letter) to Harrit's paper.
Ummmmmmmm, let me know when this so-called GRAND Revolution of yours is going to start?

I want to load up on popcorn!
dc1971 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 18th March 2012, 07:42 PM   #524
dc1971
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
JREF debunkers don't need anything more substantial than someone that is apparently an expert telling them what they want to hear as is the case with the NIST WTC 7 report despite it having absolutely no scientific evidence to support it whatsoever.
So we should listen to you?
dc1971 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 18th March 2012, 09:36 PM   #525
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
How amazing that the events would have numerous of the characteristics of the use of aluminothermics and it's chemical signature found in the dust and air samples only to then have then high-tech us military grade nano-engineered themitic material turn up in every sample of dust tested by scientists from numerous universities.
what shock...
Dust that came from where, deniers??
I mean???? explain: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...roundings.html

From the gravitational potential of the building?? You have to be living in lala land to believe that. And what of the 100 day fires. The evidence just goes on and on.. So I wont go over it again..hit the link to the page in my signature and do your own research.

Sorry to the deniers (You are not half the 'skeptics' you imagine yourselves to be, obviously. As you are ignoring mountain of evidence.. all in favor of personal incredulity or willful ignorance.) The evidence for demolition in lower Manhattan on 9-11 was conclusively proven beyond all reasonable doubt, long before the results of the Harrit study were released. It just reconfirmed the obvious and added yet another layer of scientific evidence.

However much it is denied is not going to change the sick sad reality. I have yet to hear a denier explain away wtc7's symmetrical implosion or any of the long list of facts that show wtc 1 2 & 7 were destroyed with explosives.
best.
__________________
“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu

Last edited by atavisms; 18th March 2012 at 09:39 PM.
atavisms 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 18th March 2012, 09:59 PM   #526
atavisms
Critical Thinker
 
atavisms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 315
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
(*Yawn*). Jones and Harrit's results were already refuted.
Someone wake me when this guy actually publishes his results.
Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature, and b: an advance engineered material that has no business being there. Besides, the presence of aluminomthermics was very well established long before the harrit report came around.

What the heck do you think happened to the steel structures (inside and outside the towers) below the point of the plane impacts? Office fires?? for 56 and 102 m minutes??... and wtc 7 >>>?and the dust and 10 other well established facts all pointing in one direction: Explosives. The white smoke that poured from the piles, the molten metal pouring from the south tower just below here it comes part moments later,,, the spheres... the insane temps and 100 day fires. It's beyond irrefutable.
Deny all you wish. People deny the holocaust too despite all the evidence there is for that, so nothing surprises me.. and this youre being fed by the mass media.. so its hard to believe..and the whole thing is so unlikely, impossible, seeming, right out of james bond..(even the official story is out of james bond)
But you cant pick your own facts and the facts in this case are overwhelmingly conclusive.
__________________
“Fire and the structural damage . . . would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated”
-Dr. Jonathan Barnett, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering at Worcester Polytechnic Institute
http://smu.gs/jvzZxu
atavisms 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 19th March 2012, 12:23 AM   #527
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,770
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature, and b: an advance engineered material that has no business being there. Besides, the presence of aluminomthermics was very well established long before the harrit report came around.

What the heck do you think happened to the steel structures (inside and outside the towers) below the point of the plane impacts? Office fires?? for 56 and 102 m minutes??... and wtc 7 >>>?and the dust and 10 other well established facts all pointing in one direction: Explosives. The white smoke that poured from the piles, the molten metal pouring from the south tower just below here it comes part moments later,,, the spheres... the insane temps and 100 day fires. It's beyond irrefutable.
Deny all you wish. People deny the holocaust too despite all the evidence there is for that, so nothing surprises me.. and this youre being fed by the mass media.. so its hard to believe..and the whole thing is so unlikely, impossible, seeming, right out of james bond..(even the official story is out of james bond)
But you cant pick your own facts and the facts in this case are overwhelmingly conclusive.
and your evidence? lol

wowey, zowee!

You must know all! Wow!

Why do you NOT have a Pulitzer Prize oh great one? Hello?

You don't do chemistry, there is no thermite. If you had any chemistry at all, you would see Jones' paper proves no thermite, but since you have no Pulitzer, and you never took chemistry, you lost this one; BIG time!, extra credit BIG TIME!'

The stuff you think you have, would be BIG TIME Pulitzer STUFF. One in a life time super famous, you broke the big story TIME! BIG TIME! They write songs about this stuff. But, alas, you have no evidence, you have delusions. Nothing.

lol, you show pictures from a meth nut. good job super researcher, 911 research shows pictures of wall board and insulation dust, and you have nothing.

You have delusions, nothing more, or you and a news paper would be sharing the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate! You have nothing.

BTW, holocuast denier normally are 911 truth believes, double fail! Better clean your house up.

19 terrorist did 911. The fires in the WTC were greater than the heat energy of 2,100 TONS of thermite; you dismiss fire as if it was negligible. You ignore the heat energy of the jet fuel, which had more heat energy than 315 TONS of thermite, and even NIST said the jet fuel did not make a difference. (because the office fires were so BIG)

How much thermite is your fantasy. Do you have numbers? Math? Anything? NO, you come by and post nonsensical claptrap and run away. You have no substance, you have no evidence, you just get spun up and post crap! Cool.

Harrit is an idiot, a full blown nut case on 911 issues. And you, you have no knowledge of chemistry or you would see the paper is a fraud and Harrit and Jones found at best dust, mixed with wallboard, insulation and coatings, like paint, and clay!

Since you have no knowledge of chemistry, you have been fooled by a few nuts. Good luck next time.

The office fire, in one tower, more heat energy than 2,100 TONS of thermite. Too bad math and 911 truth don't mix. If 911 truth used math, there would be no 911 truth. You should study fire science and steel, structural engineering, math and physics.

E=mgh, a value you failed to calculate; so you spread lies.

Next life, take chemistry and pay attention. You sure are gullible.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th March 2012 at 12:25 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 19th March 2012, 03:55 AM   #528
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
How amazing that the events would have numerous of the characteristics of the use of aluminothermics
Which characteristics are these?

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
and it's chemical signature found in the dust
What would the chemical signature be? Who found it where? (Remember: You wrote to me that you give a "rat's ass" about the Harrit paper and the details therein. I take it this still holds and you won't use that crap paper. If you DO want to use it, then you lied in your mail to me, obviously in an attempt to avoid discussion of things you don't understand).

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
and air samples
Can you link us to an analysis of air samples that showed the chemical signature of aluminothermics?

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
only to then have then high-tech us military grade nano-engineered themitic material turn up in every sample of dust tested by scientists from numerous universities.
Oh - you are alluding to the Harrit paper after all - and I thought you gaver a rat's ass about it!

Well read my most recent post above. Mark Basile confirmed these scientists from numerous universities when he showed that 99-100% of the energy of this "high-tech us military grade nano-engineered themitic material" comes from ordinary organic combustion, and only 0-1% from "aluminothermics"

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
what shock...
Dust that came from where, deniers??
Red-gray chips that several scientists mistake for weapons: Paint.
Other dust: Gypsum wall bord, mineral fiber insulation, crushed concrete.

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
I mean???? explain: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evid...roundings.html

From the gravitational potential of the building??
Yes. From what other energy?
I already explained to you, complete with numbers, how much energy was available from the gravitational potential of the building.
Do you remember how much that was?
You seem to be asserting that this energy from the gravitational potential was not sufficient to create all the dust. Well, how much energy was needed then? Twice as much? Ten times as much? Please provide an estimate.
When we have your numbers, we can go on and compute how much aluminothermic material we'd need, or how much explosives.

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
You have to be living in lala land to believe that. And what of the 100 day fires.
Furniture, carpets, piping, humans, computers, ...
What's your suggestion?
Can you estimate how much energy was available from office contents in the towers?
You seen to be asserting that these office contents are not enough to feed fires for 100 days.
So how much energy do you need to feed fires that long? Twice as much? Ten times as much?
When we have your figures, we can compute how much aluminothermics you'd need in the rubble pile.

Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
The evidence just goes on and on.. So I wont go over it again..hit the link to the page in my signature and do your own research.
Let's not tackle all of this at once, and not in this thread.

Remember, this thread is about Mark Basile's "confirmation" of Harrit e.al., and I just wrote this lengthy blog post that explains that from Basile's data it follows inevitably that 99-100% of the heat and energy and power of these chips comes from simple organic combustion, no different from burning paper.

So in light of this result, can you please explain this thing about the "chemical signature" of aluminothermics, and also how these chips would help you explain the collapses and why the rubble piles burned so long. Do not forget to actually use the evidence presented by Basile or Harrit!

I think of you try this and do it intelligently and well informed, you will find that nothing in their work supports any of your (only hinted at) claims. Because organic combustion of office contents explains it all so much better, and Basile and Harrit really studied a mundane organic material: Paint.
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 19th March 2012, 03:58 AM   #529
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature...
This is the chemical signature of a red-gray chip (the "thermitic" red layer, to be precise):



I got two questions:

1. Do you agree that this is indeed the chemical signature of the red-gray chips?
2. Can you explain that signature, and why you think it is aluminothermic in nature?

Thanks.
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 16th June 2012, 08:56 AM   #530
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Ivan found a paper with lots of thermal data on many types of polymers. This allows me now to show why the burning chip, which Mark Basile shows in his video, can't get its "punch" (which presumably is demomnstrated by the rapid ejection of gas) from thermite. Reason: There is too little thermite (if any at all) and too much matrix; the little bit of thermite could not even heat the matrix by more than 125°C, let alone turn it to gas - or perform any destructive work on anything.

Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Oystein: For the record, here is a document Polymer Flammability

E.g., in Appendix A, there are these values tabulated for epoxy resin:

Td (onset of decomposition) 427 degrees C
Tp (peak mass loss rate) 462 degrees C
Tign (autoignition temperature) 427 degrees C

Btw, I have heard about some red chips from WTC dust, which perhaps autoignited at ca 430 degrees C.... But indeed, we should not take these data as something ultimate or valid for all epoxies...
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Cool! -> # oysteinbookmark

I might add, for epoxy (EP):

Table A2:
LATENT HEAT OF GASIFICATION: 1.6 kJ/g
ENTHALPY OF GASIFICATION OF POLYMERS: 1.5 kJ/g
CHAR YIELD: 4%

Table A3:
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY: 0.19 W/(m*K)
DENSITY: 1.2 g/ml
HEAT CAPACITY: 1.7 J/(g*K)

Table A5:
EFFECTIVE HEAT OF COMBUSTION: 20.4 kJ/g
HEAT OF COMPLETE COMBUSTION OF FUEL GASES: 27.1 kJ/g
Efficiency: 75%



Might come in handy at some point

I wrote a blog post where that data came in handy:

Too little thermite to blow up Mark Basile's chip


What I say there is true for all allegedly "thermitic" red-gray chips for which we have quantifiable data on the elemental composition - their ratios thermite : organic matrix are roughly:
  • 1:19 for Mark Basile's chip 13
  • 1:7 for the LaCledeoform chips a-d
  • 1: >23 for the MEK-soaked chip
It takes about 0.68 kJ to heat one g of epoxy by 400 °C to get it to decompose or ignite; and 1.5 kJ/g more to completely turn the epoxy to gas.

Thermite might, under great conditions, react with 80% efficiency and release 3.2 kJ/g.

So if your thermite:epoxy ratio is worse than 1:4.7 (=3.2/0.68), then the thermite couldn't even START to break down the epoxy, it would simply lose heat that can then not be used to wreak havoc on anything else.
It would take a mix better than 1: 1.5 (=3.2/(0.68+1.5)) to also crack the epoxy matrix and turn it to gas in order to do "explosive" volume work. Of course you'd need to add more thermite to go more than "pfffff".

None of the chips are close in Al- and Fe-content to allow for such ratios, and so even if these chips contained nanothermite, its energy would get entirely soaked up by the organic matrix. It could do nothing at all to anything around it! So in order for these "energetic chips" to blow up, the organic matrix has to burn conventionally, with ambient oxygen, which is the same slow process that limits attainable temperatures to what you get in any hgydrocarbon fire.
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 16th June 2012, 09:59 AM   #531
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
oystein-
do you happen to know what liquid he mixed with his "super thermite" to make it a paint form? it looks as though he did not put much liquid in with the powder. he also did not "cure" the thermitic paint as far as the video shows. i just was wondering if the liquid was an epoxy or not. i know its a tough question b/c he does not say what he put in there. but maybe someone knows...
from the jesse ventura episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As
Senenmut 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 16th June 2012, 11:17 AM   #532
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
oystein-
do you happen to know what liquid he mixed with his "super thermite" to make it a paint form? it looks as though he did not put much liquid in with the powder. he also did not "cure" the thermitic paint as far as the video shows. i just was wondering if the liquid was an epoxy or not. i know its a tough question b/c he does not say what he put in there. but maybe someone knows...
from the jesse ventura episode:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPs25Jj8_As
I have no idea. Why should I care? What has this got to do with Mark Basile's experiments on paint?
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 16th June 2012, 11:49 AM   #533
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have no idea. Why should I care? What has this got to do with Mark Basile's experiments on paint?
I'm fascinated with the truthers' claim the building was painted decades ago with a magic thermite paint (that doesn't exist today, much less back then) juuuuuust in case they wanted to destroy it some time in the future!?
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 16th June 2012, 03:49 PM   #534
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
oystein-
do you happen to know what liquid he mixed with his "super thermite" to make it a paint form? it looks as though he did not put much liquid in with the powder. he also did not "cure" the thermitic paint as far as the video shows. i just was wondering if the liquid was an epoxy or not. i know its a tough question b/c he does not say what he put in there.
It was cured enough to flare like real thermitic paint would have. It was cured enough.
__________________
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 16th June 2012, 11:36 PM   #535
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,629
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
None of the chips are close in Al- and Fe-content to allow for such ratios, and so even if these chips contained nanothermite, its energy would get entirely soaked up by the organic matrix. It could do nothing at all to anything around it! So in order for these "energetic chips" to blow up, the organic matrix has to burn conventionally, with ambient oxygen, which is the same slow process that limits attainable temperatures to what you get in any hgydrocarbon fire.
I got it. They used the nanothermite to further fuel the fires. Clever!
pgimeno 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 17th June 2012, 12:52 AM   #536
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by atavisms View Post
Keep dreaming if you think any of that psuedo-scientific nonsense debunks the fact that those chips are, a: aluminothermic in nature, and b: an advance engineered material that has no business being there. Besides, the presence of aluminomthermics was very well established long before the harrit report came around.
Has butt head Harrit ever shown how his samples differ from paint? His stuff has kaolin and iron oxide and an epoxy resin just like paint. What do they have that paint does not have? What does paint have that they do not have?

What does that vapid twit think he has between his ears that possum does not have?

Quote:
What the heck do you think happened to the steel structures (inside and outside the towers) below the point of the plane impacts? Office fires??
Actually, it was several hundred thousand tons of **** that the floors were not built to support falling on them.

The fact is that the floors could only support a few times their own weight as a static load, but they got taht much and more as a dynamic load. You cant pick your own facts and the facts in this case are overwhelmingly conclusive.
__________________
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 17th June 2012, 03:32 PM   #537
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have no idea. Why should I care? What has this got to do with Mark Basile's experiments on paint?
on paint or a thermitic material well, considering that it was a known super thermite, it would be interesting to know what he put in there and what % compostion was.
Senenmut 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 17th June 2012, 04:06 PM   #538
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
on paint or a thermitic material well, considering that it was a known super thermite, it would be interesting to know what he put in there and what % compostion was.
Just paint

It would have been interesting to know what Farrer put in his DSC device and what % compostion was. Do you know?
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 9th January 2013, 10:18 AM   #539
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
In december 2012, Mark Basile was interviewed by Bernie Suarez and Andrew Steele of the internet radio format "9/11 Free Fall", about his past studies of red-gray chips, and about his planned new and independent study.

I am happy to announced that Mark has realized a few facts that we have been preaching for a long time, and is an honest enough chap to acknowledge them openly and without hesitation. Mainly:
  1. There are two, not just one, different known WTC steel primers to be considered
  2. The vast majority of red chips that one pulls out of the dust is in fact primer paint (and only some show this exotherm behaviour that make him think they are thermitic)
  3. He thinks that even Steven Jones had "definitely" some praimer paint chips in his study (presumably Harrit e.al.).

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


I'll transcribe Basile's full uninterupted texts from the moment the host stops speaking till Basile stops speaking, so as not give the likes of MM or ergo cause to accuse me of quote mining. And yes, I am fully aware that Basile also states clearly he thinks there is nano-thermite in there. That's not the point of this post.

Money quotes in bold:

1. starting 25:50
"I've been supplied with a sample of – from what I understand there may have been actually two different primers used with the construction of the World Trade Center, I have been supplied with one of them[1]. And I put it through the exact same test[2] and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals and so on, but there's no iron spheres or iron films or anything that gets produced from the one primer that I've put through the exact same experiment. And I wouldn't expect any paint to do that. I also put a number of different paints that I basically have just in my house, they're not World Trade Center primer paint or anything, but they are just paints. And just seeing for myself, again, you know, run another experiment, and I didn't expect them to produce molten iron, and they didn't. You wouldn't expect any paints that you paint onto any building […?...] caught on fire to produce molten iron. If it did, you wouldn't use it to paint your building. You just wouldn't do it – I wouldn't, anyway. Nobody in their right mind would insure your building if it did."
I would like to comment that Basile didn't know about a second primer when I talked with him on the phone the day before Thanksgiving. I supplied him with links to some of my blog posts, including the one about LaClede primer. Although he never responded to my mails, it seems he still took notice and accepts, with some legitimate caution, the information I provided. So thumbs up to him


2. starting 27:26
"There are a lot of paint chips in the dust! You should make that perfectly clear! Just when you, if anybody in the audience, let's say, would get out there and get a World Trade Center dust sample, and they pull out red chips from this, I'm not telling anybody in the world that every red chip you're gonna pull out of there is one of these nano-thermite chips. The vast majority of them actually are primer paint, from what I […?...], but that doesn't mean they all are. And they are not all, because […?...] pulled out ones where I've seen the reaction, I've seen the product, so I know you're in there. But there is also a lot of primer paint chips in there, too."
3. starting 28:28
"I think some of the chips that, you know, Jones and all looked at were definitely, you know, primer paint chips, too, so not everything in there was nano-thermite chips. But there were chips that gave this exotherm, and that's where the real key thing is. You get those extreme exotherm at just a little off 400 °C and it produces molten iron as a reaction product."

This raises a few questions that I would like Basile, as well as Jones and collaborators, to answer:

A) How do you tell primer chips apart from "thermitic" chips before doing any thermal testing, i.e. without destructing them?
B) Were Jones, Farrer, Harrit aware that the vast majority of the chips are primer paint?
B1) If so, how exactly did they select the chips which to experiment on?
B2) In particular, how did Farrer select the chips he tested in the DSC? Did all chips he tested there show this exotherm behaviour?
C) Which chips in the Jones study are probably paint chips, in Basile's opinion, and in the opinion of Jones, Farrer, Legge, Ryan, Harrit?
D) Will any of these men acknowledge that they didn't disprove "paint" when they compared just one type of red-gray chips with one type of WTC primer paint?


Footnotes:
[1] I am 99% certain that he was supplied with a paint sample from WTC columns, so that would most probably be Tnemec 99 or 69, and not LaClede paint from the floor trusses, but I can't prove it, and I am not sure that Basile himself is clear about the source of his primer sample.
[2] That test is heating the sample on a thin strip of steel that he runs a controlled electrical current through, observing the ensuing reactions visually, and looking at the residue through a photomicroscope.

Last edited by Oystein; 9th January 2013 at 10:20 AM.
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 10th January 2013, 03:38 AM   #540
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Thanks, Oystein

Well, we see some progress in truthers' thinking...
Now, Basile is willing to admit that they were more red primers in the dust, and Farrer and Jones are at least able to reconsider somehow their previous claims as for paints, thanks to our joint effort.
Only Harrit seems to be still convinced that there had to be only one red primer used in WTC...

I don't understand these Basile's sentences: "And I put it (authentic WTC paint?) through the exact same test and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals." What does it mean? How heating of paint chip(s) can be produce glass fibers?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 10th January 2013 at 03:41 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 10th January 2013, 04:04 AM   #541
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
I don't understand these Basile's sentences: "And I put it (authentic WTC paint?) through the exact same test and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals." What does it mean? How heating of paint chip(s) can be produce glass fibers?
I wondered about that, too. It's possible that I misheard - sound quality is low, and sometimes a non-native listener understands funny things.
But with amorphous silica in Tnemec, I don't find it entirely unexpected to find glassy something in the ash - maybe he meant glassy micro-spheres (mundane and abundant in mineral ashes), but mis-spoke?
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 10th January 2013, 04:46 AM   #542
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
I don't understand these Basile's sentences: "And I put it (authentic WTC paint?) through the exact same test and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals." What does it mean? How heating of paint chip(s) can be produce glass fibers?
You're not the only one! I found that sentence bizarre. Glass fibres?

I'd like to know where they are sourcing the WTC paint and whether it's Tnemec Red or not (we know LaClade is not available unless scrapped off a monument).

One other point I'd mention is that the chips that Harrit et al used weren't just paint, the paint was adhered to oxidised steel. If Basile is heating Tnemec Red paint without the attached gray layer and not seeing iron microspheres in the reaction product then this strengthens my observation that the iron microspheres are made from the oxidised steel.
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 10th January 2013, 04:55 AM   #543
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I'd like to know where they are sourcing the WTC paint and whether it's Tnemec Red or not (we know LaClade is not available unless scrapped off a monument).
My understanding from private communication is that Basile got his WTC paint sample second-hand through Jones from the same Clarkson University monument we talked about some weeks ago.

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
One other point I'd mention is that the chips that Harrit et al used weren't just paint, the paint was adhered to oxidised steel. If Basile is heating Tnemec Red paint without the attached gray layer and not seeing iron microspheres in the reaction product then this strengthens my observation that the iron microspheres are made from the oxidised steel.
Good point, haven't thought about that one! I want to write another email to Mark, with questions arising from his interview, and will include asling about this!

One thing that bothers me is that these guys are always stressing how very "scientific" their approach is - but then all they do is talk about it on YouTube, and not produce carefully written-up papers. I wouldn't even demand peer-reviewed publishing, I'd be very much contented if Basile (and Farrer and...) just summarized their methods, results and findings in good white paper. So he talks about heating a paint chip, doing the same experiment on it - why haven't we seen the same kind of data? Photomicrograph and EDS chart before burning, video of burning, micrographs after burning?
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 10th January 2013, 05:01 AM   #544
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
By the way, later in the interview (don't have the time-stamp - I think very roughly around the 40-minutes mark) Basile says something smart about DSC testing under inert gas:

If there is thermite in there, it should either start to react, at some point, OR, if it doesn't, then the elemental (nano-)Al would melt near the melting point of Al, 660 °C, and that would show in the DSC trace (as an endotherm trough).
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 10th January 2013, 06:50 AM   #545
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Thanks, Oystein

Well, we see some progress in truthers' thinking...
Now, Basile is willing to admit that they were more red primers in the dust, and Farrer and Jones are at least able to reconsider somehow their previous claims as for paints, thanks to our joint effort.
Only Harrit seems to be still convinced that there had to be only one red primer used in WTC...

I don't understand these Basile's sentences: "And I put it (authentic WTC paint?) through the exact same test and it didn't produce iron spheres. Basically all it does is it turns into, in large part, glass fibers and a bunch of minerals." What does it mean? How heating of paint chip(s) can be produce glass fibers?
Could they be the long lost rods of strontium chromate?
__________________
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
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 10th January 2013, 07:35 AM   #546
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Could they be the long lost rods of strontium chromate?
Since he wasn't testing LaClede primer from floor trusses, no (extremely unlikely)
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 10th January 2013, 07:41 AM   #547
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
By the way, later in the interview (don't have the time-stamp - I think very roughly around the 40-minutes mark) Basile says something smart about DSC testing under inert gas:

If there is thermite in there, it should either start to react, at some point, OR, if it doesn't, then the elemental (nano-)Al would melt near the melting point of Al, 660 °C, and that would show in the DSC trace (as an endotherm trough).
Is there supposed to be a Mark Basile quote amongst your words?

MM
Miragememories 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 10th January 2013, 07:51 AM   #548
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Wink

As for strange Basile's sentence: it could be that this guy simply mismatched things and was speaking about heating some dust samples (not only chips), or perhaps about chips with some adhered "other materials". Then, his words "glass fibers and a bunch of minerals" would make more sense. Basile seems to be rather "chaotic personality".

Sunstealer: I'm also more and more convinced that iron-rich microspheres can be formed only from the attached rust. No wonder that Basile has not found any microspheres when heating some samples of several paints (without any rust).

Oystein: Yes, this is a good point and Basile deserves some appraisal in this regard.

BasqueArch: I don't think so. First, Basile very probably heated Tnemec paint (since he should have no access to authentic "Laclede"). Second, strontium chromate should be decomposed upon heating to high temperatures. Third, strontium chromate straight needles can be hardly considered as "fibers". But I can be wrong

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 10th January 2013 at 07:59 AM.
Ivan Kminek 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 10th January 2013, 09:09 AM   #549
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Is there supposed to be a Mark Basile quote amongst your words?

MM
No. Since I, in contrast to most truther/trolls on this subforum, use the quote function and quote marks with care and deliberation, I would have used one of those devices if I were do quote him.

But you can listen for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iilMWTQxhzc#!

(I am also not in the truther/troll habit of throwing YT videos at ya without any guidance, that's why said it's probably roughly around the 40 minutes mark. I think if you listen from 37:00 to 47:00, you'll quite likely get to the remark about DSC and seeing the melting point of Al)
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 10th January 2013, 11:51 AM   #550
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
By the way, later in the interview (don't have the time-stamp - I think very roughly around the 40-minutes mark) Basile says something smart about DSC testing under inert gas:

If there is thermite in there, it should either start to react, at some point, OR, if it doesn't, then the elemental (nano-)Al would melt near the melting point of Al, 660 °C, and that would show in the DSC trace (as an endotherm trough).
So to interpret your interpretation of Mark Basile's spoken words;

Thermite will eventually react to a rising temperature.

Aluminum will melt when it is heated to its melting point.

Hardly a revelation.

MM
Miragememories 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 10th January 2013, 12:42 PM   #551
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So to interpret your interpretation of Mark Basile's spoken words;

Thermite will eventually react to a rising temperature.

Aluminum will melt when it is heated to its melting point.

Hardly a revelation.

MM
Now explain how these properties are useful in the context of the debate (DSC testing, inert/oxygen rich atmosphere)?
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 12th February 2013, 11:46 AM   #552
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No. Since I, in contrast to most truther/trolls on this subforum, use the quote function and quote marks with care and deliberation, I would have used one of those devices if I were do quote him.

But you can listen for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iilMWTQxhzc#!

(I am also not in the truther/troll habit of throwing YT videos at ya without any guidance, that's why said it's probably roughly around the 40 minutes mark. I think if you listen from 37:00 to 47:00, you'll quite likely get to the remark about DSC and seeing the melting point of Al)
I have transcribed this interview with mark Basile, with lots of annotations:

Basile_Interview_FreeFallRadio_Transcript_201212.p df
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 12th February 2013, 04:46 PM   #553
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Now explain how these properties are useful in the context of the debate (DSC testing, inert/oxygen rich atmosphere)?
Since it was your non-revelation, it is incumbent on you to show what point you are trying to make.

MM
Miragememories 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 12th February 2013, 05:50 PM   #554
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Since it was your non-revelation, it is incumbent on you to show what point you are trying to make.

MM
It is actually Millette's point, not mine, but I agree it could be a useful point:

Let me first quote Basile verbatim (ca. 37:00 minutes into the above video):
Originally Posted by Mark Basile
The other approach is to do some of these DSC runs, these calorimeter runs, and to do them in an inert gas atmosphere. Now, a number of people have claimed that the thermite will ignite in an inert atmosphere, and I think it will, I am just not sure that it's gonna ignite at the same temperature as when there's air is present. The activation energies involved might be different in an inert atmosphere versus one where there is oxygen. But if it doesn't ignite in an inert atmosphere, one thing that should happen when we hit the melting point of aluminium is, if it hasn't ignited by that point, is we would actually detect the melting point and the melting energy of any free aluminium that was actually present in the chips
So again:
If you test the chips in the DSC under an inert gas, then one of two events must happen:
  1. Either the thermite ignites - that would show as a sharply peak exotherm somewhere below or near the melting point of Al at 660 °C.
  2. Or the thermite does not ignite - then the elemental Al will simply melt at it's melting point of 660 °C (or slightly below, if particle size or impurities affect melting point), and that would show in the DSC plot as a well-defined endotherm trough)
Now if neither of these happens, then there is no elemental Al in the specimen.


Any DSC result will have to be taken with caution, of course: Such exotherms and endotherms are never unique markers for exactly one reaction and none other - DSC events are fundamentally ambiguous and can only be properly interpreted with additional analytical information and knowledge about the sample.
Also, as the chips contain several different sunstances that all may react differently in the DSC, it could be difficult to discern these separate but concurrent events.
These are the reasons why we say that DSC is not a competent analytical method in this case. However Basile's idea is clever, and while possibly not totally conclusive, I have hope that it gives a useful result.
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 12th February 2013, 09:53 PM   #555
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Quote:
Quoting Mark Basile:
The other approach is to do some of these DSC runs, these calorimeter runs, and to do them in an inert gas atmosphere. Now, a number of people have claimed that the thermite will ignite in an inert atmosphere, and I think it will, I am just not sure that it's gonna ignite at the same temperature as when there's air is present. The activation energies involved might be different in an inert atmosphere versus one where there is oxygen. But if it doesn't ignite in an inert atmosphere, one thing that should happen when we hit the melting point of aluminium is, if it hasn't ignited by that point, is we would actually detect the melting point and the melting energy of any free aluminium that was actually present in the chips
The activation energy required to initiate a given sample of real thermite will be same whether or not oxygen is present. In a real gel thermite, such as have been manufactured by Dr. Tillotson, the presence of air might get it started at a lower temperature by energy from combustion of the gel matrix. Which will also generate far more energy than the thermite itself!

For that matter, combustion of the aluminum in air will generate more energy than will reduction of the Fe2O3. And you can bet that nanometer-size aluminum will be really easy to ignite! I can't get over how idiotic this thermite notion really is. Thermite isn't used to produce energy - ferric oxide is a wretched oxidizing agent. If you want to produce energy, mix it with a decent oxidizer such as ammonium perchlorate. It'll even make it into a half-way decent explosive.
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 13th February 2013, 03:07 AM   #556
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It is actually Millette's Basile's point, not mine,...
Arghhhh! Correction!
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 2013, 03:16 AM   #557
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
... I can't get over how idiotic this thermite notion really is. Thermite isn't used to produce energy - ferric oxide is a wretched oxidizing agent. If you want to produce energy, mix it with a decent oxidizer such as ammonium perchlorate. It'll even make it into a half-way decent explosive.
Correct. The only interesting property of thermite is that it doesn't involve any gasses and can therefore reach pretty extreme temperatures locally. Basile correctly points out that its main application is to conveniently produce molten iron - and he should add: not to melt iron!

SE Jones once found in slag he collected from god-knows-where high levels of manganese and speculated on potassium permanganate as oxidizer. None of that of course has anything to do with the red-gray chips.
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 2013, 12:11 PM   #558
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Correct. The only interesting property of thermite is that it doesn't involve any gasses and can therefore reach pretty extreme temperatures locally. Basile correctly points out that its main application is to conveniently produce molten iron - and he should add: not to melt iron!

SE Jones once found in slag he collected from god-knows-where high levels of manganese and speculated on potassium permanganate as oxidizer. None of that of course has anything to do with the red-gray chips.
At various times, he's also claimed molybdenum and fluorine Funny, he's never explained why silicon is ubiquitous in the chips!
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 18th March 2013, 12:00 PM   #559
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,952
Another Mark Basile video:
Interview With Mark Basile - Chemical Engineer - 1.mov
(Part 1 of 2; uploaded 2011/03/28, recorded probably not long before that; 8:27 minutes. Part 2 here)

I am still listening. First interesting soundbite: Following 4:53 he talks about the different materials, and primer paint he has seen in a museum in Washington, DC, on the radio mast from the North Tower. He says "the" primer paint (which doesn't have to be Tnemec! we don't know who made and painted the mast) looks orange, whereas the "thermitic" chips are more red. So there is one criterion to distinguish chips!
But he hasn't actually tested the different chips to verify what they are and aren't, he just assumes that the more orange chips are primer.

5:32:
Originally Posted by Mark Basile
So, as I go through here [the dust samples; Oy], I do find orange chips, which I think are steel primer, but we're also finding these red, and a lot of times it's the red-gray material together. So there's a lot of different stuff together there.
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 18th March 2013, 05:30 PM   #560
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,554
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
At various times, he's also claimed molybdenum and fluorine Funny, he's never explained why silicon is ubiquitous in the chips!
Not funny if you remember his obvious goal. IMO it was 'Personal recognition in a "marketplace"'.

The whole thermXte sideline is the result of Jones bid to boost his falling prominence in the arena of 9/11 debate. By any means. His prominence is supported possibly more by his being wrong than by being right on thermXe dust. (Read that carefully please. )

Hence all the evident frustration for members who persist in treating the claims of Jones, Harrit et al, and all their sycophant trolls, as if their purpose was valid scientific proof of something to do with thermXte. It wasn't.

Jones' and Harrit's goals were personal prominence;
The trolling goal as always - get the maximum number of "bites" and ensure the discussion does not progress.
ozeco41 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 01:25 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.