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 2nd December 2012, 10:41 PM   #1041
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Now, what result from a DSC test would convince you that there is no thermite?
A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or,

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's confirmations of that.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd December 2012, 10:53 PM   #1042
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or,

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's confirmations of that.
Paper has more energy than thermite; what would the world be if we all had to take and understand chemistry? You would not be falling for lies, and there would be no 911 truth. Kind of big fail, bringing thermite to an office fire. To beat the office fires before collapse on 911, you need to bring 2,500 TONS of Thermite. What a dumb big failed fantasy. What do you offer, blind obedient repeating lies made up by idiots in 911. Why do you spread nonsense made up by nuts?
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 2nd December 2012, 11:01 PM   #1043
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Paper has more energy than thermite
Good to know. I look forward to watching you cut steel with a paper fire. Or is that melt steel? How about a nanoengineered paper bomb? Cool.
__________________
“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 3rd December 2012, 03:05 AM   #1044
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.
You say:
IF (NOT A1 AND NOT A2) THEN NOT B
with
A1 = "Millette's chips produce any exothermic reaction"
A2 = "Millette's chips produce microspheres"
B = "There is thermite"
An argument of the form IF X THEN Y has one valid reversal: IF NOT Y THEN NOT X.

Above, X = (NOT A1 AND NOT A2) and Y = NOT B
and NOT Y = B and NOT X = (A1 or A2)
and IF NOT Y then NOT X = IF B THEN (A1 or A2)

So from your claim "(I'll accept there is no thermite if) a test of Millette's chips produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres" follows application of the most basic logic:
If there is thermite, then Millette's chips produce any exothermic reaction OR Millette's chips produce microspheres.
Is that a true statement, ergo? Note that I stress the word "any"! It's important here.
How about
If there is an organic matrix, then Millette's chips produce any exothermic reaction OR Millette's chips produce microspheres.
Is that a true statement, ergo?

Originally Posted by ergo View Post
and/or,

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's confirmations of that.
Why do you need specifically Farrer's and Basile's confirmation of that? Are you contending that, if Farrer and Basile died today, then it would be foorever impossible for Millette to disprove the thermite theory?

Last edited by Oystein; 3rd December 2012 at 03:10 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 3rd December 2012, 03:51 AM   #1045
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.
Please explain how would that convince you.

Are you implicitly agreeing here that the chips analyzed by Millette have the same composition to the chips in figure 2 a-d in the Bentham paper, and thus if one is thermite the other is too, and vice versa?

Under what conditions should the test be performed for you to consider that a negative conclusion derives logically from a DSC experiment? (a) Presence of oxygen, (b) Pure nitrogen?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 3rd December 2012, 05:12 AM   #1046
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Harrit et al ruled out paint using several different methods. Millette still cannot confirm that it's paint.

Harrit et al deduced elemental aluminum both from chemical observation and the results of DSC testing. Millette stopped at his assumption of kaolinite, therefore did not do DSC testing.

In over three years of amateur, internet debate on this subject not a single "debunker" has ever done a simple paint chip heating test.

Is anyone bored yet?
Ergo, we debunkers here are in some agreement that iron-rich microspheres were created basically from gray layers (Sunstealer's idea) and it does not make sense to heat some different samples of paints on gray rust and to look for microspheres. Only tests on original samples from WTC can be comparable/convincing enough, so it is up to Jim Millette or any other "owner" of dust samples.

Oystein and interested: I'm not sure if this is new, but I have found this article Steel for bearings, where are paragraphs on spheroidisation in steel. It seems to me (I have no access to original journals) that when steel is annealed at ca 600-800 degrees C, cementite spheroids are quickly formed in several minutes.
Here is one image from the link:



One quote: "In an interesting study, induction annealing was used to produce divorced pearlite, i.e.spheroidised cementite in a matter of minutes [271]. Undissolved cementite was preserved by rapid austenitisation of a 52100 type steel for 30s at 850 degrees C. This was then transformed isothermally at 650 degrees C for 17min to produce the required microstructure with a hardness of about 235HV."

I'm no metallurgist so I have no idea if such processes (low temperature spheroidisation) can take place also in rusted steel ("gray rust") or e.g. on the boundary of unoxidized and "pristine" steel, but perhaps yes...? Anyway, microsphere decicted in Fig. 25 (Bentham paper) may be such spherical cementite, contaminated by Si and Al stuffs. I think

Anyway, it is just another hint that iron-rich rounded microobjects can be formed from such materials at quite low temperatures

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 3rd December 2012 at 05:13 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 3rd December 2012, 06:35 AM   #1047
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
Anyway, it is just another hint that iron-rich rounded microobjects can be formed from such materials at quite low temperatures
That's the important thing: It is another nail in the coffin of the dumb Truther claim that "iron-rich micresphere, therefore a chemical reaction must have reached >1530 °C (only possible explanation), therefore thermite (only possible explanation)".

We have now at least the following processes that create iron-rich microspheres at temperatures reached by common types of fire and not involvling thermite:
  • Burning fine strands or particles of iron
  • Sintering
  • Burning organic materials that contain iron compouns - iron microspheres condense out of the reaction. Common examples are burning coal in a power plant, burning wood in a camp fire, and burning houshold waste in an incinerator
  • Spheroidisation of cementite in steel
I am pretty sure that, in general, phase transitions in corroded steel und heat also change the shape of microstructures, and many will tend towards spherical shapes.

So the above simplistic truther argument fails. It doesn't take the burden off of their shoulder to prove both that thermite is present before burning (they have failed this burden yet, by failing to show significant quantities of Al) AND that a thermite reaction did in fact take place (e.g. by quantifying the 4 substances involved in the thermite reaction before and after).

It's back to the lab for truthers: Find plenty of elemental Al before the reaction! Find plenty of Al-oxide after!
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 3rd December 2012, 06:47 AM   #1048
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Good to know. I look forward to watching you cut steel with a paper fire. Or is that melt steel? How about a nanoengineered paper bomb? Cool.
One item having more chemical energy than another has nothing to do with how quickly the energy is released. You fail at basic chemistry.
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 06:54 AM   #1049
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
One quote: "In an interesting study, induction annealing was used to produce divorced pearlite, i.e.spheroidised cementite in a matter of minutes [271]. Undissolved cementite was preserved by rapid austenitisation of a 52100 type steel for 30s at 850 degrees C. This was then transformed isothermally at 650 degrees C for 17min to produce the required microstructure with a hardness of about 235HV."
...
Relying on Wikipedia...:
Cementite is iron carbide, Fe3C, which commonly forms in carbon steel, as no more than 0,02wt% od carbon can usually be dissolved in cool steel without it forming compounds.

Fe3C is 6.67% by weight carbon and 93.3% iron. Since the steels used, for example, by LaClede Steel for the floor trusses, contains in the vicinity of 1% C, it would follow that up to 14% of the mass of such steel could be cementite (less, if you factor in additional mass of O from corrosion).


Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Anyway, microsphere decicted in Fig. 25 (Bentham paper) may be such spherical cementite, contaminated by Si and Al stuffs. I think
Hmm nuh, don't think so, too much Si and Al, and S, Ca, Ti, O... so whatever sphere they measured there (unfortunately, they didn't indicate the scanned region in the accompanying BSE image) was probably more of the glassy kind that included metal oxide particles and is found in extreme abundance in all sorts of ashes from ordinary fires.

A better candidate is Fig. 21, it's in the right size range, and has a pretty clean XEDS spectrum with a nice carbon peak.


But we shouldn't speculate too much on what this or that sphere or spectrum in Harrit e.al. shows. It suffices to say that several explanations are possible and not ruled out that are non-nefarious (have nithing to do with thermite). Beyond that, data is simply too thin.
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 3rd December 2012, 09:39 AM   #1050
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Relying on Wikipedia...:
Cementite is iron carbide, Fe3C, which commonly forms in carbon steel, as no more than 0,02wt% od carbon can usually be dissolved in cool steel without it forming compounds.

Fe3C is 6.67% by weight carbon and 93.3% iron. Since the steels used, for example, by LaClede Steel for the floor trusses, contains in the vicinity of 1% C, it would follow that up to 14% of the mass of such steel could be cementite (less, if you factor in additional mass of O from corrosion).



Hmm nuh, don't think so, too much Si and Al, and S, Ca, Ti, O... so whatever sphere they measured there (unfortunately, they didn't indicate the scanned region in the accompanying BSE image) was probably more of the glassy kind that included metal oxide particles and is found in extreme abundance in all sorts of ashes from ordinary fires.

A better candidate is Fig. 21, it's in the right size range, and has a pretty clean XEDS spectrum with a nice carbon peak.


But we shouldn't speculate too much on what this or that sphere or spectrum in Harrit e.al. shows. It suffices to say that several explanations are possible and not ruled out that are non-nefarious (have nithing to do with thermite). Beyond that, data is simply too thin.
Yep, we shouldn't speculate too much, still another my attempt

My original thought was: there was apparently too little of carbon in the WTC construction steel(s) to explain microspheres in Bentham paper as cementite spheroids formed from gray layers, but couldn't be some cementite formed during burning of paint by reaction with its thermally degraded carbon-based polymer binder?
Probably yes, since the formation of cementite from hematite is well-known, when heating e.g. with charcoal (which is what is basically formed from any paint polymer binder above ca 450 degrees C, until it is not burned out by further oxidations at even higher temperatures). Also, steel itself "consumes" some carbon e.g. from charcoal, with the formation of cementite during "carburization".

But, these are again just speculations based on very quick literature search, microspheres can be indeed something else than cementite I'm also not sure if such formation of cementite can take place in oxidative atmosphere (under air).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 3rd December 2012 at 09:54 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 3rd December 2012, 09:58 AM   #1051
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
Yep, we shouldn't speculate too much, still another my attempt

My original thought was: there was apparently too little of carbon in the WTC construction steel(s) to explain microspheres in Bentham paper as cementite spheroids formed from gray layers, but couldn't be some cementite formed during burning of paint by reaction with its thermally degraded carbon-based polymer binder?
Probably yes, since the formation of cementite from hematite is well-known, when heating e.g. with charcoal (which is what is basically formed from any paint polymer binder above ca 450 degrees C, until it is not burned out by further oxidations at even higher temperatures). Also, steel itself "consumes" some carbon e.g. from charcoal, with the formation of cementite during "carburization".

But, these are again just speculations based on very quick literature search, microspheres can be indeed something else than cementite
Too lazy to do calculations now, but my intuition is that the burning paint alone wouldn't do much at all to the gray layer:
1. Assuming that red and gray layers come in about equal volumes (same layer thickness, on average), then the gray layer has like 4-5 times the mass of the red layer.
2. Only a small proportion of the heat of the burning polymer would get into the gray layer, the much greater part would go away as hot gas and radiation.
3. Given reasonable estimates of the heat capacity of the gray layer and the energy density of the red layer, one could compute an estimate of how hot the gray layer could get on average, and I suspect it wouldn't come near the temperatures mentioned in your earlier quote from that paper.

However, we must not forget that the gray layer as well gets heated by the DSC. If my intuition above is right, then more energy is infused into the gray layer by the equipment than by the heat of reaction, making the heat of the reaction relatively unimportant. However, you are correct that the red layer may offer reaction partners to the grey layer - I have previously speculated about epoxy decomposing temporarily to benzene, and further in part to CO or even H2; you are adding char, and yeah, that might be a viable source for iron to form carbides - but again, we are speculation! Don't forget that the iron is already mostly oxidized, and I am not sure iron oxide could be transformed to iron carbide just like that. But the carbon steel already starts out with some significant iron carbide content, the DSC temp goes up to 700 °C, we may have a reducing atmosphere while the epoxy decomposes, etc. Who knows what can happen?

Last edited by Oystein; 3rd December 2012 at 09:59 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 3rd December 2012, 10:15 AM   #1052
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
One item having more chemical energy than another has nothing to do with how quickly the energy is released. You fail at basic chemistry.

Wha-a...?
You mean paper combustion won't cut steel?? Are you suggesting that there's some kind of difference between energy density and power density?? Have you alerted the other "debunkers" about this??
__________________
“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 3rd December 2012, 10:20 AM   #1053
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post

Wha-a...?
You mean paper combustion won't cut steel?? Are you suggesting that there's some kind of difference between energy density and power density?? Have you alerted the other "debunkers" about this??
Can you point us to an instance of WTC steel "cut" prior to collapse? Thanks.

ETA: Or actually to an instance of Jones's red-gray chips cutting steel.
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 3rd December 2012, 10:24 AM   #1054
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,020
Originally Posted by ergo View Post

Wha-a...?
You mean paper combustion won't cut steel?? Are you suggesting that there's some kind of difference between energy density and power density?? Have you alerted the other "debunkers" about this??
Wha-a... Like this chip didn't cut through the heating strip it was on ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature
Spanx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:32 AM   #1055
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post
Wha-a... Like this chip didn't cut through the heating strip it was on ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1TwVACENAo&feature
Hehe, pretty good remark
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 3rd December 2012, 10:33 AM   #1056
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Can you point us to an instance of WTC steel "cut" prior to collapse? Thanks.
Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?
__________________
“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; 3rd December 2012 at 10:34 AM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:36 AM   #1057
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,079
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?
You should be asking yourself this of the DSC experiment.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 10:46 AM   #1058
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?
I love the way you put words in my mouth. I never suggested that release was more important than energy density. It is a factor, that is all. An office fire will still do damage to structural steel, especially when it is left without fire protection because someone flew a plane into it (or, in the case of WTC7, a burning building fell on it). It does not necessarily follow from "thermite's high rate of energy release causes it to do a lot of damage quickly" that "an office fire can't do any damage at all because it doesn't release energy fast enough".
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:48 AM   #1059
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You should be asking yourself this of the DSC experiment.
Perhaps. For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 10:55 AM   #1060
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,079
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Perhaps. For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.
You can find this in lots of places. Have you tried looking in reference books? I'd like to see one that shows they supports the conclusion of the paper.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 11:22 AM   #1061
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
ergo, you keep dodging an important question regarding how you would get convinced. I still see lots of wriggle room in the outcome of a DSC test result that you say would convince you of no thermite. You still haven't convinced me you're serious about it. I don't think you are. Your answer is ambiguous enough as to not be an answer, as you can work around any result for not being done your way. My prediction holds.


Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.
Please explain how would that convince you.

Are you implicitly agreeing here that the chips analyzed by Millette have the same composition to the chips in figure 2 a-d in the Bentham paper, and thus if one is thermite the other is too, and vice versa?

Under what conditions should the test be performed for you to consider that a negative conclusion derives logically from a DSC experiment? (a) Presence of oxygen, (b) Pure nitrogen?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:37 AM   #1062
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
You're right, pgimeno. The first result would not completely convince me. It would help your case a lot, though. I will revise my answer to this:

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results.

The latter would go farther in convincing me than the former.
__________________
“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; 3rd December 2012 at 11:57 AM.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 12:18 PM   #1063
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Why are you asking this? Beachnut said paper "has more energy" than thermite. I challenged him to cut some steel with a paper fire to show us this greater "amount" of energy in action. Then the dopefish straightened us all out by suggesting that energy release is far more important than energy density in doing work.

So your question really should be, and should probably always be, what was the relevance of Beachnut's statement?
So beachnut's statement was irrelevant? Ok, I can agree with that - at least the "steel cutting" portion there of. The rest of the remark - that paper has a higher energy density than thermite - is somewhat relevant.

Leaves my astonished that you would reply to the irrelevant part. Then again, that's what trolls do, so I shouldn't really be surprised
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 3rd December 2012, 12:20 PM   #1064
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Perhaps. For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.
Why?

What question would you want to answer with such an experiment? Please state the questiom precisely!

Then please state which kind of result would give which answer to the question!
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 3rd December 2012, 12:21 PM   #1065
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
You're right, pgimeno. The first result would not completely convince me. It would help your case a lot, though. I will revise my answer to this:

A test of Millette's chips that produced no exothermic reaction and no microspheres.

and/or

A test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results.

The latter would go farther in convincing me than the former.
Why?
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 3rd December 2012, 12:29 PM   #1066
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,079
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

Leaves my astonished that you would reply to the irrelevant part. Then again, that's what trolls do, so I shouldn't really be surprised
Beachnut didn't mention "steel cutting. That was all ergo's strawman.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 02:25 PM   #1067
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
So beachnut's statement was irrelevant? Ok, I can agree with that - at least the "steel cutting" portion there of. The rest of the remark - that paper has a higher energy density than thermite - is somewhat relevant.
I agree, but probably not for the same reason you do. But if you can break your habit of ignoring questions that threaten the validity of your opinions, go ahead and explain why you think his statement was relevant.
__________________
“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 3rd December 2012, 02:27 PM   #1068
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Why?
Do you understand how to disprove an experimental finding?
__________________
“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 3rd December 2012, 03:30 PM   #1069
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Do you understand how to disprove an experimental finding?
Yes, I formulate my theory thus that it can be falsified by experiment, then design the experiment such that I can specify which test result will falsify the theory.

That's what I meant by my question "Why?" Why would "A test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere that produce the same exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results" falsify their conclusion that the red-gray chips are active thermitic material?

Please state the theory. Such that it is falsifiable.
Design the experiment "test of various known paint chips from the WTC or elsewhere"
Specify the "exothermic results and microspheres as found in the Bentham study and Farrer's and Basile's results"
And explain why these results would falsify the theory!
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 3rd December 2012, 03:52 PM   #1070
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I see that even the truthers will not commit to acknowledging that the specimens a,b,c,d in the Harrit et al paper are the same material even though this is concluded in the paper and debunkers acknowledge this to be the case,

It's a pretty poor showing when they cite a paper for evidence but refuse to acknowledge the specific conclusion.

N.B This is specific to the Millette study, If they dare to acknowledge I'll show why.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 3rd December 2012 at 03:53 PM.
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 3rd December 2012, 05:14 PM   #1071
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Do you understand how to disprove an experimental finding?
Use a better experiment.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd December 2012, 05:43 PM   #1072
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I see that even the truthers will not commit to acknowledging that the specimens a,b,c,d in the Harrit et al paper are the same material even though this is concluded in the paper and debunkers acknowledge this to be the case,
Sunstealer, aren't you the one who insists that the chips are all different? According to you, none of the chips are Tnemec paint EXCEPT the one soaked in MEK. (Convenient, yes? )

Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint. Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC, and never mind that Sunstealer appears to simply be fitting the facts to his pet theory with no experimentation, and guesswork rather than logic backing his deduction.
__________________
“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; 3rd December 2012 at 05:53 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 3rd December 2012, 06:46 PM   #1073
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,731
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Good to know. I look forward to watching you cut steel with a paper fire. Or is that melt steel? How about a nanoengineered paper bomb? Cool.
There was no melted steel at the WTC, and Millette confirms no thermite.

The point is the office fires were equal in heat energy to over 2,500 TONS of Thermite. Office fires beat 2,500 TONS of Thermite.

I don't need to cut steel to destroy a building - office fire said this. Thermite weak, office fire strong. Did you try to look up how much heat the office fire in the WTC had? You could us math and fires science to calculate this, why not do it?


Steel fails in fire, it is called science. The same science is used by Millette to show there is no thermite in the dust at the WTC.

Millette finds no thermite, and there was no damage from thermite. You would clearly find iron fused to steel in the WTC if thermite was used, and it was not found. Millette confirms this. 911 truth fools a few, guess they failed to take chemistry.

Last edited by beachnut; 3rd December 2012 at 06:52 PM.
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 4th December 2012, 12:15 AM   #1074
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
For example, I would love to see the DSC results of this organic matrix that bedunkers keep talking about. Just to, you know, compare. Sometimes, to study something in a scientific way, researchers do stuff like that.

Sunstealer, aren't you the one who insists that the chips are all different? According to you, none of the chips are Tnemec paint EXCEPT the one soaked in MEK. (Convenient, yes? )

Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint. Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC, and never mind that Sunstealer appears to simply be fitting the facts to his pet theory with no experimentation, and guesswork rather than logic backing his deduction.
Ergo:
1) Sigh... Any organic matrix, including organic polymers, would simply burn at such circumstances (e.g. during heating in DSC under air), there is no need to prove it. It has been acknowledged for tens of thousands years by mankind that organic stuffs burn, only you seem to miss this fact
Definition from Wiki for you: "Combustion or burning is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species. The release of heat can produce light in the form of either glowing or a flame. Fuels of interest often include organic compounds (especially hydrocarbons) in the gas, liquid or solid phase."
You do not agree? Do you know some example of endothermic burning/ combustion and/or e.g. of flame colder than surrounding air???

2) Sunstealer is right: Bentham chips (a) to (d) are clearly different material than MEK chip for numerous reasons. They were summarized e.g. in Oystein's article Why red-gray chips aren't all the same.

3) Yes, Millette ruled out Tnemec primer in his Progress Report, because of missing larger peaks of zinc and chromium in XEDS spectra.
As for your: "Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC". WTF? You seem to be confused in this respect: a) The comparison of behavior (e.g. solubility) of red/gray chips with one particular, moreover unspecified paint is one of the biggest flaws of Bentham paper. Perhaps it is even more idiotic than infamous "search for thermitic reaction under air". Many paints are soluble in some solvents, many other paints are insoluble, period. b) We do not see any DSC of any paint used for comparison in Bentham paper. You simply lie (or your memory is not working reliably).

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 4th December 2012 at 12:39 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 4th December 2012, 12:45 AM   #1075
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
...
b) We do not see any DSC of any paint used for comparison in Bentham paper. You simply lie (or your memory is not working reliably).
Correct. But...

Perhaps ergo is alluding to a videotaped ae911t interview with Farrer, who there states verbally that he has also tested some paint (or paints?) in the DSC and found them to display a very broad peak.

Of course this suffers from the same problem as the idiotic solubility tests: With thousands of paints out there in millions of conditions, this comparison is worthless. Especially since he definitely didn't test any known LaClede shop primer.
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 4th December 2012, 01:15 AM   #1076
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Of course this suffers from the same problem as the idiotic solubility tests: With thousands of paints out there in millions of conditions, this comparison is worthless. Especially since he definitely didn't test any known LaClede shop primer.
How many paints were they supposed to test that would satisfy the legions of anonymous internet "debunkers" for many years to come? Seriously, wtf are you expecting? And how many paints have YOU tested? Zero. You've tested absolutely zero.

While they tested several different paints and noted the significant differences in properties to those of the red-grey chips, you have tested none, and are GUESSING that there might yet be some paints that don't dissolve in MEK and that will combust at 430 deg C, produce bright flashes and maybe even microspheres! You're just GUESSING, and you expect those who have done real work on the matter, those who have expertise that NONE OF YOU HAVE to engage you in your silly protestations. What the hell are you going to do when you can't prove Laclede paint either? How silly does this have to get??

Surely you have enough sense to occasionally get a glimmer how childish your claims appear to others. Start doing some real work, and then maybe you'll get the audience you seek.
__________________
“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 4th December 2012, 01:40 AM   #1077
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Ergo:
Just for your information: I am not an anonymous internet debunker. I have used my full name from the very beginning here. I am a polymer chemist working in Czech Academy of Sciences with about 50 peer-reviewed papers in the field (try Google Scholar or better the Web of Science).

I am fully qualified to claim for sure that some paints (their polymer binders) are insoluble e.g. in MEK (cross-linked), others are soluble (linear). This belongs to very basics of polymer chemistry and at least Harrit (as a chemist) should now it. The dissolution of hundreds of various polymers in tens of solvents is my everyday job for more than 25 years

Therefore I stand on my claim that a comparison of solubility of MEK chip with the solubility of some unspecified paint is just childish idiocy without any value
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 4th December 2012, 02:49 AM   #1078
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,995
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
How many paints were they supposed to test that would satisfy the legions of anonymous internet "debunkers" for many years to come? Seriously, wtf are you expecting? And how many paints have YOU tested? Zero. You've tested absolutely zero.
...
Well, yes, of course. Because testing random paints is a stupid thing to do and doesn't answer the question that the Betham paper sought to answer.

ergo, do you recall what that question was? And what was the answer given by Harrit e.al.? Can you please explain how testing random paints would confirm or refute these answers?
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 4th December 2012, 03:59 AM   #1079
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint.
Millette selected for further analysis specifically chips with the same XEDS spectra as those in figure 6 a-d. Among these chips Millette didn't find any which matched Tnemec paint. But some of the XEDS spectra in other chips he analyzed but did not select for further analysis do match Tnemec.

It is therefore misleading to say that Millette "rules out" Tnemec paint, given that he selected specifically those that more probably are LaClede primer and left the rest, including those which could match Tnemec, apart.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
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 4th December 2012, 06:05 AM   #1080
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Sunstealer, aren't you the one who insists that the chips are all different? According to you, none of the chips are Tnemec paint EXCEPT the one soaked in MEK. (Convenient, yes? )

Never mind that Millette rules out Tnemec paint. Never mind that Harrit and Jones showed that paint chips dissolve in MEK and burn up in the DSC, and never mind that Sunstealer appears to simply be fitting the facts to his pet theory with no experimentation, and guesswork rather than logic backing his deduction.
Sigh. So you won't commit to saying a=b=c=d then? The paper concludes this. I conclude this. But you don't.

If not why not?
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
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 01:46 AM.
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.