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 james millette , kevin ryan , Niels Harrit , paint chips , richard gage , steven jones , wtc

Reply
Old 6th June 2012, 02:36 AM   #761
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,676
Oystein, you make so much logical sense and explain things so well it's rather undeniable you know what you are talking about and are correct. Ergo is being dishonest to himself by disregarding your posts.

I should start saving your posts somewhere for future reference.. unless you've already saved all this somewhere that I could get a copy?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 June 2012, 02:40 AM   #762
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Oystein, you make so much logical sense and explain things so well it's rather undeniable you know what you are talking about and are correct. Ergo is being dishonest to himself by disregarding your posts.

I should start saving your posts somewhere for future reference.. unless you've already saved all this somewhere that I could get a copy?
For like three months now I have wanted to write a comprehensive article in my blog on the many many problems of Farrer's DSC tests, but am procrastinating on it

I'll let you know when it's done
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 6th June 2012, 08:52 AM   #763
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,211
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
If you want to prove paint, you want to know what reacted here.
I certainly agree with half of that sentence by ergo. I want to know what reacted in DSC. Because we have no freaking clue!

And if the results on reproducibility of DTA traces that Sunstealer Ivan mentioned apply in this case, I think that we can say that we have four completely different things. Most likely not even that is granted, though.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
If you put a lot of sugar in your coffee, the mix is not sugar! And if you put a lot of water into your cat, the composite is not water! So if you put a lot of thermite into an organic binder, the mix is not thermite!
Hmm... that principle does not always hold. If you put a spoonful of sewage in a barrel full of wine, you get sewage.

__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 6th June 2012 at 09:34 AM. Reason: Misattribution fixed
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 6th June 2012, 09:28 AM   #764
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Most of the thread is off-topic now. It's interesting that there simply hasn't been any analysis of Millette's data by truthers.

We expect to see particles of paint in the dust. The buildings were huge and enormous quantities of paint were present. Any material attached to a magnetic material such as steel is going to be separated using the magnet method. Hence we would expect to find paint.

I would expect any study to characterise paint as part of the screening process if you were looking for thermite or for that matter any other material.

It's interesting that the truther studies never found a single sample of paint. This is a massive anomaly. Millette in contrast is only looking for samples that match the criteria set out in the Harrit et al paper and has done so. His much more thorough analysis shows these samples to be paint.

Did Millette find other materials using the magnet method of separation and if so what were they?
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 6th June 2012, 07:31 PM   #765
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
oystein-
got a link to 100nm size hematite pigment for sale. ive looked here and there and cant find any yet?
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 6th June 2012, 07:59 PM   #766
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
oystein-
got a link to 100nm size hematite pigment for sale. ive looked here and there and cant find any yet?
LOL

Did you found any larger than 100 nm hematite pigment for sale?
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 6th June 2012, 09:33 PM   #767
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
For like three months now I have wanted to write a comprehensive article in my blog .... but am procrastinating on it
I intend to do my Doctorate in Procrastination...


...when I get around to it.
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
Old 6th June 2012, 11:32 PM   #768
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Oystein has posted way too much for me to respond to in a single day - and I would like to respond, so I will begin with this post.


Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I already answered this - in fact, the answer is at the very start and core of this argument:

WE! DON'T! ***********! KNOW!!!

Because Farrer didn't show, describe characterize what he put in the DSC. Some of the many different types of red-gray chips I suppose.
This is stupid. The red grey chips all have very specific common characteristics that are not shared by other particles in the dust. As well, they have generally the same chemical signatures, with a few blips of variations which could well be contamination.

For you to say you "don't know" what was tested using the DSC is just stupid. We know you think it's paint chips. So just say it. It's not potato chips. It's not bananas. It's not carpet. You think it's paint chips. Why are you having problems saying this?

Furthermore, we all know that it was red grey chips that were tested. It wasn't some other particle that slipped in there or that just looks like the red-grey chips. Whether there is some minor heterogeneity among the chips, they are still all red-grey chips with the properties that Harrit identified and that Millette confirmed. You think they're paint. Others think they're thermitic. You know that if it's paint, it's not Tnemec, because Tnemec WILL NOT IGNITE AT 430 C. If you doubt this, you should be testing it to remove your doubt. If you don't want to test it, you'll have to accept the evidence that already exists, which is that Tnemec DOESN'T IGNITE AT THAT TEMPERATURE. Do tests, and you can blather all you want. Refuse to do these test, you'll have to accept the current evidence.


Quote:
No, it wouldn't. DSC can't distinguish betweem paint and non-paint. The DSC curve of LaClede will be dominated by the epoxy matrix. Suppose Farrer's chips really were a formulation of thermite, in an epoxy matrix, then the 430°C peak likewise would be dominated by the epoxy matrix, and my curve would look very similar to his, and you couldn't conclude paint from the result. That's because DSC is not a competent or useful method to ID unknown materials.
And that's not why it was used. Don't insult people's intelligence.


Originally Posted by Oystein
NO, ergo, none of the literature on nanothermites tells us this. You make that up.

If you want to maintain your position, please provide a citation that any of the literature on nanothermites tells us that nano-thermite can release more energy per mass unit than the theoretical maximum for thermite (just under 4.0 kJ/g for Al+Fe2O3).

...

Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?

I find Jim Hoffman's explanation perfectly understandable:

Quote:
Whereas the energy density of an explosive is determined by its chemistry, its power density is determined by its reaction rate, which, in the case of a thermitic material, is determined by its physical characteristics. Specifically, the reaction rate increases with the fineness of the metal and oxide powders and the uniformity with which they are mixed.

.... The reaction rate in turn determines the destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car's engine block, the same quantity of a nano-thermite composite explosive will blow the car apart.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._residues.html

Quote:
Energy Density and Power Density

In terms of energy density, thermite is roughly comparable to TNT, packing slightly less energy per unit of mass but about three times as much energy per unit of volume. In terms of power density, thermitic preparations range across a wide spectrum, whose upper end appears to be comparable to conventional high explosives. [1] [2]

Because thermites have historically had much lower power densities than conventional high explosives, they are classified as incendiaries rather than explosives
Oystein, do you disagree with the statement that nanothermites can store more energy than conventional energetic materials?


Originally Posted by Oystein
It wasn't about the thermite theory. Please pay attention to context! It was about your claim that Tnemec, and perhaps other paints, would withstand temperatures far beyond 430°C. They don't, they do get oxidized in an exotherm reaction; they matrix just doesn't go away into thin air.
As per the WTC physical evidence, Tnemec doesn't burn at 430 C. If you disagree with this, prove otherwise.


Quote:
The "mud-cracking" that NIST observed for heated Tnemec is indicative of a loss of volume and mass of the paint matrix. That is because it reacts chemically.
As per the WTC physical evidence, Tnemec doesn't burn at 430 C. If you disagree with this, prove otherwise.
__________________
“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 June 2012, 12:00 AM   #769
Africanus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Whether there is some minor heterogeneity among the chips, they are still all red-grey chips with the properties that Harrit identified and that Millette confirmed.
Dr. Millette confirmed the elemental composition of the chips, but he did some further tests like IR spectroscopy. And this tests prove that only chemically bonded aluminum is present. So Harrit's chips are not nanothermite.

Quote:
You think they're paint. Others think they're thermitic.
Dr. Millette confirmed the the presence of kaolinite and epoxy binder. Both are components of paint like the laclede primer.

Quote:
You know that if it's paint, it's not Tnemec, because Tnemec WILL NOT IGNITE AT 430 C. If you doubt this, you should be testing it to remove your doubt.
So you got evidence for that claim? Then please post the corresponding DSC results here.
Africanus 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 June 2012, 12:04 AM   #770
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Thanks for your irrelevant comments, Africanus. You have completely missed the point of what I'm saying to Oystein.

And no, burden of proof for the ignition point of Tnemec primer lies with Oystein, who is making claims against the material evidence. I know you guys don't understand this, but that's not my problem.

Pay better attention to what's being said, dude.
__________________
“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 June 2012, 01:56 AM   #771
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
We are massively off-topic. So I'll just reply to the part that mentions Millette's dust study:

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
This is stupid. The red grey chips all have very specific common characteristics that are not shared by other particles in the dust. As well, they have generally the same chemical signatures, with a few blips of variations which could well be contamination.
...
Furthermore, we all know that it was red grey chips that were tested. It wasn't some other particle that slipped in there or that just looks like the red-grey chips. Whether there is some minor heterogeneity among the chips, they are still all red-grey chips with the properties that Harrit identified and that Millette confirmed.
...
Let me check if I understand you correctly, ergo. Are you saying that
  • as per your first paragraph, all red-gray chips are essentially the same material?
  • i.e. if one, or four, ignite at 430°C, all ignite at 430°C?
  • i.e. if one is, for example, thermitic, all are thermitic?

If I got that part right then you will certainly agree that
  • if on, or four, chips are paint, then all are paint
right?

Got news for you, ergo:

Millette proved that one kind of chips contains only common ingredients of paint, but no elemental metal (in particular, no aluminium), so those chips are surely paint, and definitely not thermitic.

It follows, from your logic, that all red-gray chips are not thermitic, they are all paint.


I have one question that you dodged very elaboratively, by derailing an already derailed thread to the totally irrelevant topic of "power density".

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Oystein, do you disagree with the statement that nanothermites can store more energy than conventional energetic materials?
Well first you answer what I originally asked:

Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?

(If you fail to give a crisp answer, which begins either with a "Yes." or a "No.", you'll go back to ignore immediately, as that will show that your evasions, distractions and stupidity will never end)
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 7th June 2012, 04:25 AM   #772
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
By the way:

The "AE911Truth Blueprint Newsletter | Vol. XXXVIII | May 2012" was a little late, they mailed it out a couple of days ago and labeled it "Late May – Early June 2012".

Still no mention of any critique of the Millette Progress Report. Instead, they are featuring a length article on - squibs!
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 7th June 2012, 04:29 AM   #773
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Bumped for Chris Mohr, in case it got lost in the recent derail:

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Oystein,
Last Friday Richard Gage told me personally that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the Bentham paper were only about 100 atoms across. Is this true? That would be ultra-nano if it were! He thinks Millette may not have looked at this closely enough.
Let's see...

Iron oxide, Fe2O3, has a density of about 5.2 g/cm3 and a molar mass of 159.7 g/mol. So one mol occupies a volume of (159.7/5.2) cm3 = 30.7 cm3 = 3.7*10-5 m3. The edges of cube of that volume are 0.031 m long (3.1 cm), that is 310,000,000 31,000,000 nm.

1 mole is about 6.0 ×1023. The cubic root of that number, 84,343,266, would be the number of molecules along the edge if you arrange 1 mole in a cube.

So if iron oxide molecules were in a cubic crystal structure, you'd find 84,343,266 molecules per 31,000,000 nm, or 0.37 nm per molecule, or 37 nm per 100 molecules.

The iron oxide pigments in the red paint are typically 100-150 nm across, that would be 270-405 molecules.

This would be somewhat different for different materials, but I think we get an idea here of the orders of magnitude that we are talking about.
Iron: 23 nm / 100 atoms.
Silica: 34 nm / 100 atoms
Iron oxide: 37 nm / 100 atoms
etc.

So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check their micrographs...

Nope, I see no post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across.

However, as I said, the iron oxide pigments are close to that order of magnitude, they are only a few 100 molecules across. Perhaps he (or you?) mixed up pre-ignition grains and post-ignition spheres?

100 nm iron oxide pigments have been state of the art for 100 years and are easily and cheaply produced on large industrial scales by entirely conventional means: Chemical reaction, grinding and sieving, and are thus found in millions of mundane products.
(ETA: A few corrections and additions marked in blue and striked-out)

Last edited by Oystein; 7th June 2012 at 04:37 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 7th June 2012, 06:43 AM   #774
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Bumped for Chris Mohr, in case it got lost in the recent derail:



(ETA: A few corrections and additions marked in blue and striked-out)
Thanks Oystein, yes I copied this post and it will be used in the re-re-rebuttal pages because it's so good!
__________________
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 June 2012, 08:51 AM   #775
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Thanks Oystein, yes I copied this post and it will be used in the re-re-rebuttal pages because it's so good!
And how good is it?

Before you rush to post Oystein's beautifully wrapped analysis, you might want to consider the basis for his conclusion.

After all of his dazzling but pointless number crunching, he went to the photomicrographs with a ruler to get his critical data.



The blue reference line is 50,000 nm long (50 microns).

A rough guess would place the smallest visible iron-rich microspheres at around 1,000 nm or 1 micron.

So the 100 atom diameter microsphere that Richard Gage referred to, would be from 23 thousandths to 37 thousandths of the diameter of the smallest visible microsphere that Oystein could see.

So on what basis did Oystein justify in bold lettering, the conclusion that the micrographs negated the existence of those spheres?

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...Bumped for Chris Mohr, in case it got lost in the recent derail:..."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check their micrographs.

Nope, I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across....
"
Spheres so small, that even if the Bentham Paper's published micrograph had sufficient resolution to show them, a magnifying instrument would still be required to view such a small object.

Richard Gage's stating the Bentham Paper authors found microspheres of a certain size, is not the same as claiming that the Bentham Paper published every micrograph including those at a magnification sufficient to show the smallest of the iron-rich microspheres discovered in the residue of ignited red chips.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 7th June 2012 at 08:53 AM.
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 7th June 2012, 10:17 AM   #776
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
After all of his dazzling but pointless number crunching, he went to the photomicrographs with a ruler to get his critical data.
Actually, it must have been Richard Gage who went to the photomicrographs with a ruler to get his critical data:

Originally Posted by Chris Mohr
Richard Gage told me personally that some of the iron-rich spheres found in the Bentham paper were only about 100 atoms across
So when I am told that Richard Gage finds such tiny spheres in the Bentham paper, then surely I should be able to repeat that feat, yes?

So let's look at the Bentham paper and the microspheres therein:

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post


The blue reference line is 50,000 nm long (50 microns).

A rough guess would place the smallest visible iron-rich microspheres at around 1,000 nm or 1 micron.

So the 100 atom diameter microsphere that Richard Gage referred to, would be from 23 thousandths to 37 thousandths of the diameter of the smallest visible microsphere that Oystein could see.
Wow, I am impressed, MM! Three sentences in a row without something really stupid, you aren't as bad as I thought!
Yes, I agree with all of that!

Now, the blue marker in the image you uploaded there is about 220 pixels wide, and represents, as you say, 50,000 nm, so 1 pixel corresponds to 227 nm, or 37 nm (100 iron oxide molecules across) would correspond to 0.16 pixels.

Gage claims (if Chris quotes him properly) that you can find spheres this small in the Bentham paper.


Clearly, you cannot.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
So on what basis did Oystein justify in bold lettering, the conclusion that the micrographs negated the existence of those spheres?
And there the MM nonsense is picked up again.
Strawman.
I didn't say the micrographs "negated the existence of those spheres". I said "I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron"

Please try not to misrepresent me in the future. Such blunders only strengthen my conviction that you are a dishonest man.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Spheres so small, that even if the Bentham Paper's published micrograph had sufficient resolution to show them, a magnifying instrument would still be required to view such a small object.
The problem is, there is a technical limit to the resolution / magnification of SEM or BSE images. The iron oxide grains for example in Fig. 8, which are 100-150 nm across, are already close to that limit. If you had any particles of the size we are talking about here, 25-40 nm, they would be so small at highest resolution that you couldn't tell if they are spheres or some other shape (irregular, cube...).

You'd need to do TEM microscopy then. But that had not been done by the ATM authors until after publication (and we don't know any results).

So I can tell you with great conviction: They didn't find any microspheres that are only 100 atoms (or molecules) across. Not in the Bentham paper, and also not in the unpublished material to the Bentham paper.


Of course I am aware that no reasons in the world will ever rob you of your religious faith in the full Truthiness of everything any leader of Da Twoof ever utters.
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 7th June 2012, 02:15 PM   #777
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Good point. I forgot to check the thread before replying. It's definitely OT. I'm done anyway.

But the question related to the Millette study does pertain to the claims of explosive demolition. The fact is there is no evidence of explosive materials in the WTC dust, as AE911Truth and the Bentham paper claims.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th June 2012, 02:29 PM   #778
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...So Gage is claiming that there are microspheres in the Bentham paper that are about 20-40 nm across? Let me check their micrographs... Nope, I see none post-ignition spheres smaller than 1 micron, all are larger than 1,000 nm, or more than 2500 atoms/molecules across...."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"The problem is, there is a technical limit to the resolution / magnification of SEM or BSE images. The iron oxide grains for example in Fig. 8, which are 100-150 nm across, are already close to that limit. If you had any particles of the size we are talking about here, 25-40 nm, they would be so small at highest resolution that you couldn't tell if they are spheres or some other shape (irregular, cube...).

You'd need to do TEM microscopy then. But that had not been done by the ATM authors until after publication (and we don't know any results).

So I can tell you with great conviction: They didn't find any microspheres that are only 100 atoms (or molecules) across. Not in the Bentham paper, and also not in the unpublished material to the Bentham paper.


Of course I am aware that no reasons in the world will ever rob you of your religious faith in the full Truthiness of everything any leader of Da Twoof ever utters.
"
If you knew it was impossible for the micrographs to show something that small, why did you look?



The above is a 1,000 nm portion of Fig.9 from the Bentham Paper. Considering it is just a 72 ppi screen capture, and that the source image must be of a much higher quality, I believe that round objects with a diameter only 30-40 nm would still be discernible as round.

What I don't understand is why Chris, acting as a journalist, would seek the advice of a pretender like yourself, rather than pursuing clarification from Richard Gage. Richard Gage is trying to get the true story out there and obviously he is on speaking terms with Chris.

Oh you might want to be more careful with how you use the terms; "atoms" and "molecules", since one is composed of the other.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 7th June 2012 at 02:34 PM.
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 7th June 2012, 03:46 PM   #779
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If you knew it was impossible for the micrographs to show something that small, why did you look?
Just in case

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/3161/bseimage.png

The above is a 1,000 nm portion of Fig.9 from the Bentham Paper. Considering it is just a 72 ppi screen capture, and that the source image must be of a much higher quality, I believe that round objects with a diameter only 30-40 nm would still be discernible as round.
Here is a link to the best quality Fig. 9 I can get out of the paper:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...Fig09_orig.jpg

It's missing the information in the black bar, which includes a scale marker. The black bar is approximately 4.3 microns wide and 300 nm high. Since it's 84 pixels high, 1 pixel is 3.5 nm; A structure 35 nm across would show as 10 pixels. I just played around a little with MS Paint, resizing several images of circles and spheres to 10 pixel diameter. It depends pretty much on contrast resolution if you can tell a circle from an octogon, for example, or a smooth ball from a dimpled and bumpy one.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
What I don't understand is why Chris, acting as a journalist, would seek the advice of a pretender like yourself, rather than pursuing clarification from Richard Gage. Richard Gage is trying to get the true story out there and obviously he is on speaking terms with Chris.
LOL
You are quite something, calling me a pretender, and Gage a dispenser of true stories

Turns out, what Chris heard from Gage there is FALSE. If Chris trusted in Gage's words, he'd now believe a FALSE statement. How about that?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Oh you might want to be more careful with how you use the terms; "atoms" and "molecules", since one is composed of the other.
Hahahaha

Please, MM, where did I use the terms incorrectly?
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 8th June 2012, 07:50 AM   #780
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"...Here is a link to the best quality Fig. 9 I can get out of the paper:

http://i1088.photobucket.com/albums/...Fig09_orig.jpg
"
Your so called reference is a 68 KB JPEG of an SE image. That is not a lossless, copy of the original.

There are many sites that discuss SEM and SE imaging in under 10 nanometers.

The quality of your proofs leaves a great deal to be desired.

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 8th June 2012, 08:38 AM   #781
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,491
Quote:
What I don't understand is why Chris, acting as a journalist, would seek the advice of a pretender like yourself, rather than pursuing clarification from Richard Gage. Richard Gage is trying to get the true story out there and obviously he is on speaking terms with Chris.
Trying out stand-up comedy material?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 June 2012, 12:34 PM   #782
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
We are massively off-topic. So I'll just reply to the part that mentions Millette's dust study:


Let me check if I understand you correctly, ergo. Are you saying that
  • as per your first paragraph, all red-gray chips are essentially the same material?
Yes. Do you think otherwise?

Quote:
  • i.e. if one, or four, ignite at 430°C, all ignite at 430°C?
If one out of four ignite at 430 C, then not all ignite. If four out of four ignite, then all ignite. Why do you ask?


Quote:
  • i.e. if one is, for example, thermitic, all are thermitic?
If one is thermitic, chances are a good many of them are. It depends on how the thermite is distributed within the matrix, I suppose.

Quote:
If I got that part right then you will certainly agree that
  • if on, or four, chips are paint, then all are paint
right?
If four out of four chips are paint, and there's no ignition reaction at 430 C that produces that exotherm and resulting microspheres, then it's likely that the chips are paint with no thermite.

If you can prove that plain old non-thermitic paint chips ignite at 430 C, producing similar microspheres at least one in four times as were observed by several researchers, then your case for no thermite is very strong.

Quote:
Millette proved that one kind of chips contains only common ingredients of paint, but no elemental metal (in particular, no aluminium), so those chips are surely paint, and definitely not thermitic.
He may have a case that that chip or those chips are not thermitic.


Quote:
It follows, from your logic, that all red-gray chips are not thermitic, they are all paint.
If they're not thermitic, I don't really care what they are.


Quote:
I have one question that you dodged very elaboratively, by derailing an already derailed thread to the totally irrelevant topic of "power density".

Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?

(If you fail to give a crisp answer, which begins either with a "Yes." or a "No.", you'll go back to ignore immediately, as that will show that your evasions, distractions and stupidity will never end)
I will honestly answer that I don't know. However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites. As was already pointed out, thermite has near the same energy density as TNT. Is TNT not an explosive in your eyes? What is the relevance of this constant harping on energy density?

If it relates specifically to the DSC test, then I am interested in learning how and why. Otherwise, I will reiterate again that all the literature on nanothermites discuss their greater energy storage capacity, faster reaction times, faster release rates, and therefore greater explosive potential. Discussions of energy density in this case appear to be entirely irrelevant.

Here's another reference:

Quote:
Conventional energetic materials typically have relatively low energy density and reaction burn rate. By reducing the reactant particle size from micron size to nano scale, nanothermite mixtures decrease the diffusion and transport limitation, exhibiting a superfast reactivity and high pressure release rate during nanothermite reactions. These novel nanoenergetic materials have the potential to become the next generation explosive and propellant.
http://gradworks.umi.com/34/84/3484045.html
__________________
“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; 8th June 2012 at 12:37 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 8th June 2012, 02:49 PM   #783
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,537
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
...
I will honestly answer that I don't know. However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites.
...
Since there is no nanothermite (the energy density of >>4 kJ/g amd the absence of elemental Al prove absolutely that the energetiv material is not thermite of any kind), you are off topic. The topic is Millette's dust study.

The reason why we discuss DSC here is your assertion that a replication of Farrer's DSC test with the Millette chips which don't contain thermite wouöld prove anything with regard to the question of thermite or no thermite.

It does not.

Your reply of "I don't know" to the question "Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?" proves absolutely that you don't understand the most fundamental physical realities of this universe, or are utterly unable to apply them to the topic at hand.

it follows that debating this with you is pointless.

I'll end the debate here.
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 8th June 2012, 07:37 PM   #784
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Can anyone explain to me why Oystein comes to this conclusion:

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
there is no nanothermite

from this conclusion:
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
the energy density of >>4 kJ/g amd the absence of elemental Al prove absolutely that the energetiv material is not thermite of any kind
???

Because I thought that nanothermites are typically embedded in a binder or matrix of some kind, typically organic. Isn't it commonly accepted that the presence of these organic compounds will alter the energy output in the reaction? For example,what was the energy release measured in the Tillotson test? Anyone?

So how can it be concluded that "there is no nanothermite" when the energy output will not confirm this either way?

Sorry if this is refried hash to some of you here, but I'm trying to understand why the "debunkers" are so focussed on energy density when it appears to have no relevance to explosive power, and also when it appears that energy release will vary with other materials present in the reacting material.

Eg: Harrit et al. (Bentham paper):
Quote:
A graph in an article on nanostructured energetic materials [21] shows that the energy/volume yield for Al/Fe2O3 composite material exceeds that of TNT, HMX and TATB explosives commonly used in demolitions (see Fig. (30)).

It is striking that some of the red/gray chips release more energy in kJ/g than does ordinary thermite, as shown in the blue bar graphs above. The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g [27]. We suggest that the organic material in evidence in the red/gray chips is also highly energetic, most likely producing gas to provide explosive pressure. Again, conventional thermite is regarded as an incendiary whereas super-thermite, which may include organic ingredients for rapid gas generation, is considered a pyrotechnic or explosive [6, 24].

From Gash, 2003 (Nanostructured Energetic Materials with Sol-Gel Chemistry]:
Quote:
... one could add metal-oxide components that are more reactive with Al(s) to increase the energy released.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
The reason why we discuss DSC here is your assertion that a replication of Farrer's DSC test with the Millette chips which don't contain thermite would prove anything with regard to the question of thermite or no thermite.
My guess is that paint chips don't ignite at those temperatures, don't produce the same exotherm as the red grey chips, and don't produce microspheres. Since the WTC evidence shows us that Tnemec paint does not ignite at 430 C, and Harrit et al showed that microspheres form in the reaction, the evidence still weighs in favour of something more energetic than paint.
__________________
“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; 8th June 2012 at 08:28 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 8th June 2012, 08:41 PM   #785
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,225
For the lulz...

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Quote:
I have one question that you dodged very elaboratively, by derailing an already derailed thread to the totally irrelevant topic of "power density".

Are you claiming that nano-thermite (of the Al+Fe2O3 variety) can have an energy density > 4 kJ/g?

(If you fail to give a crisp answer, which begins either with a "Yes." or a "No.", you'll go back to ignore immediately, as that will show that your evasions, distractions and stupidity will never end)
I will honestly answer that I don't know. However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites. As was already pointed out, thermite has near the same energy density as TNT. Is TNT not an explosive in your eyes? What is the relevance of this constant harping on energy density?

If it relates specifically to the DSC test, then I am interested in learning how and why. Otherwise, I will reiterate again that all the literature on nanothermites discuss their greater energy storage capacity, faster reaction times, faster release rates, and therefore greater explosive potential. Discussions of energy density in this case appear to be entirely irrelevant.
Egad. My responses in blue:
  • "However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites."
    True. Note, however, that the obsession with energy density is a Truther trait, initiated by Harrit et al.'s discussion of energy density in their paper.
  • "As was already pointed out, thermite has near the same energy density as TNT."
    As you had just acknowledged, energy density is irrelevant to actual explosive potential.
  • "Is TNT not an explosive in your eyes?"
    Yes, but chocolate chip cookies are not explosives, even though chocolate chip cookies have higher energy density than TNT. Please try to keep up with what you yourself had written just two sentences earlier.
  • "What is the relevance of this constant harping on energy density?"
    None. So why did Harrit et al. try to make such a big deal of energy density? And why did you and many other Truthers fall for that deception?
  • "If it relates specifically to the DSC test, then I am interested in learning how and why."
    Harrit et al.'s DSC test measured the energy density. That's one of the very few things that was accomplished by their DSC test. The energy density measured by their DSC test showed that the red-gray chips could not have been the kind of thermite or nanothermite they discussed in their paper.
  • "Otherwise, I will reiterate again that all the literature on nanothermites discuss their greater energy storage capacity,"
    As Oystein and others have pointed out on many occasions, nanothermites have less energy storage capacity than the corresponding thermites because their greater surface area exposes more of the oxidizable component to premature oxidation.
  • "Discussions of energy density in this case appear to be entirely irrelevant."
    Agreed. You should join us in laughing at Harrit et al. for basing so much of their argument on energy density.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sorry if this is refried hash to many of you here, but I'm trying to understand why the "debunkers" are so focussed on energy density when it appears to have no relevance to explosive power, and also when it appears that energy release will vary with other materials present in the reacting material.

Eg: Harrit et al. (Bentham paper):
Debunkers talk about energy density because Harrit et al. tried to use energy density as one of their main talking points. That has provided a great deal of amusement to scientifically literate debunkers, because Harrit's measurements of energy density actually proved their red-gray chips could not have been the kinds of nanothermite they discussed in their paper.

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
My guess is that paint chips don't ignite at those temperatures, don't produce the same exotherm as the red grey chips, and don't produce microspheres.
Your guesses have not been educated guesses. If you consult a dictionary, you will find that the word "hope" would have been even more appropriate than "guess".

Last edited by W.D.Clinger; 8th June 2012 at 08:47 PM.
W.D.Clinger 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 June 2012, 11:57 PM   #786
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
[list][*]"However, this obsession with energy density appears to be irrelevant to the actual explosive potential of nanothermites.
True. Note, however, that the obsession with energy density is a Truther trait, initiated by Harrit et al.'s discussion of energy density in their paper.
Actually, no. I don't see this in any "truther" arguments. On the other hand, every second post of Oystein's is about, well, how NOTHING can exceed 3.9kj/g or it SIMPLY ISN"T THERMITE!!!1! (sung to the tune of: "Ya can't have your puddin before ya eat yer meat!! HOW can you have yer puddin before ya eat yer meat?!?!!" )

Which is, of course, utterly stupid. As you confirm here.

The rest of your post simply reiterates that stupidity. Glad we agree on that.

As for scientifically literate, I look forward to seeing any of you join the discussion in a professional scientific arena. But for a bunch of anonymous internet "debunkers" to claim that they know more about these matters than Niels Harrit is laughable. It's embarrassing - to anyone with any intelligence and humility.


Quote:
As Oystein and others have pointed out on many occasions, nanothermites have less energy storage capacity than the corresponding thermites because their greater surface area exposes more of the oxidizable component to premature oxidation.[/indent]
And this is incorrect. You don't appear to know what you're talking about. If you disagree with me, provide a citation that confirms this claim.
__________________
“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 9th June 2012, 12:13 AM   #787
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
I look forward to seeing any of you join the discussion in a professional scientific arena.
Let us know when your arguement gets to one.

__________________
"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 9th June 2012, 12:35 PM   #788
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Actually, no. I don't see this in any "truther" arguments. On the other hand, every second post of Oystein's is about, well, how NOTHING can exceed 3.9kj/g or it SIMPLY ISN"T THERMITE!!!1! (sung to the tune of: "Ya can't have your puddin before ya eat yer meat!! HOW can you have yer puddin before ya eat yer meat?!?!!" )

Which is, of course, utterly stupid. As you confirm here.
ergo:

I'm saying this in the nicest way. This post proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have not read or understand anything Oystein has said. You are so far out of your element that even I'm embarrassed for you.


__________________
"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 9th June 2012, 01:26 PM   #789
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,930
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
ergo:

I'm saying this in the nicest way. This post proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have not read or understand anything Oystein has said. You are so far out of your element that even I'm embarrassed for you.


I am almost feeling sorry for him. Maybe if he got some help from an expert in performing unobtrusive building demolitions with thermite...
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
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 9th June 2012, 01:45 PM   #790
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I am almost feeling sorry for him. Maybe if he got some help from an expert in performing unobtrusive building demolitions with thermite...
Funny how in all those Youtube videos, there's not a single one of a steel girder being cut in half by thermite/thermate/nano-thermite/magic fairy pixie dust.
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 9th June 2012, 01:50 PM   #791
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,183
Originally Posted by Robrob View Post
Funny how in all those Youtube videos, there's not a single one of a steel girder being cut in half by thermite/thermate/nano-thermite/magic fairy pixie dust.
Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

__________________
"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

Last edited by DGM; 9th June 2012 at 01:52 PM.
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 9th June 2012, 02:18 PM   #792
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

Jon Cole

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
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2012, 02:19 PM   #793
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,930
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

Well, I'm fairly certain the significant weakness in their theory involves a critical neuronal deficiency on the part of the adherents, however correcting this deficiency would very probably destroy the theory they hope to preserve.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
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 9th June 2012, 02:35 PM   #794
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,373
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Actually there was a "truther" (I don't recall his name) that did in-fact do some live experiments and did succeed. Although I do admire his effort he did expose a significant weakness in the "thermite" theory. I'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Well, I'm fairly certain the significant weakness in their theory involves a critical neuronal deficiency on the part of the adherents, however correcting this deficiency would very probably destroy the theory they hope to preserve.
The main weakness in all the thermXte claims is the simple fact that there was no demolition.

Even if there was a 100 tonne stockpile of thermite, thermate, nano-thermXte or Santa's custard found on Ground Zero --- there was no demolition.

We only discuss these bits of nonsense because we are prepared to argue "truther style" starting from the wrong end of the logic. They pose an anomaly - in this case the unproven anomaly that there may have been thermXte on ground zero. Then they reverse burden of proof and ask us to disprove the presence of thermXTe AND WE GO LONG WITH THAT FALSE LOGIC. Grrrrr!!!

There was no demolition. They need to prove there was demolition before the type of device used becomes of any significance. Even then it is irrelevant - the claim "they" are trying to make is that there was CD. If they prove CD they are home and hosed - don't need thermXte.

Hence my reference to Santa's custard -- first suggested by me in 2008 IIRC -- it was just as likely that Santa's custard caused CD as any form of thermXte. And the custard could easily have fallen off the sleigh and don't anyone raise anachronisms about 9/11 v 12/24 - we could end up in a derail.

It makes at least as much sense as the truther nonsense. And, (reversing burden of proof - truther style) "Prove me wrong".
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
Old 9th June 2012, 07:36 PM   #795
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
ergo:
I'm saying this in the nicest way. This post proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you have not read or understand anything Oystein has said. You are so far out of your element that even I'm embarrassed for you.
Well, anything I haven't quite grasped of Oystein's highly complex theory, feel free to enlighten me, DGM.

The best I can summarize from the logical carnage so far is: "There was no nanothermite.". . . "Because there was no nanothermite."
__________________
“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 9th June 2012, 07:53 PM   #796
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,491
Did ergo just screw up Pink Floyd in order to make a point? Is there ANYTHING you can get right?

Anything?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence 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 June 2012, 08:58 PM   #797
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Did ergo just screw up Pink Floyd in order to make a point? Is there ANYTHING you can get right?

Anything?
LMAO yeah I caught that too, but it was so lame I just quietly chuckled to myself.

It's not even a tune, but it's on a tune. So it can't be sung! He got that wrong too!
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2012, 04:01 AM   #798
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Lol. But two bedunkers googling a Pink Floyd lyric to "verify" twoofer accuracy is not lame at all....

You won't google nanothermite, but boy howdy, watch out for those 1980s concept album rock lyrics!
__________________
“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 10th June 2012, 05:50 AM   #799
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,676
The Wall was released in the 70s, and ergo, no one needs to 'google' those lyrics.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 June 2012, 05:53 AM   #800
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Lol. But two bedunkers googling a Pink Floyd lyric to "verify" twoofer accuracy is not lame at all....

You won't google nanothermite, but boy howdy, watch out for those 1980s concept album rock lyrics!
What is a 'bedunker''? Something to do with unking in bed? We are not truthers, we don't need to google everything.
dafydd 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 09:42 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.