Merged: "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

I am not questioning its authenticity. I am questioning its logic and scientific validity. As are others.

If you took chemistry and if you were able to talk to real scientist, instead of spewing nonsense, you would understand iron spheres in fires are common. But you will not take action, you will post more nonsense, nothing, and remain in ignorance.

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

Why can't you verify anything?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ergo

It's been five months and we still have not heard back from RJ Lee regarding their letter positing hurricane winds and blast-furnace-like temperatures acting on rust flakes to produce microspheres in the WTC dust.

Oystein, why has Ron Wieck not followed through on this, as he said he would?

Why, as so-called "skeptics", are none of you inquiring into this bizarre non-explanation?

[DGM]

Originally Posted by ergo

Why, as so-called "skeptics", are none of you inquiring into this bizarre non-explanation?

Speaking for myself. It's really a non-issue. Iron rich micro-spheres are common and in no way an indicator of, well anything. Basically, who cares?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

Oystein, why has Ron Wieck not followed through on this, as he said he would?

Why, as so-called "skeptics", are none of you inquiring into this bizarre non-explanation?

Ron told me that he did try to get a response from RJ Lee, but didn't get one. I am merely relaying the message here, so don't shoot me.
I don't consider this as bizarre.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by ergo

It's been five months and we still have not heard back from RJ Lee regarding their letter positing hurricane winds and blast-furnace-like temperatures acting on rust flakes to produce microspheres in the WTC dust.

Interesting. So much for Ron Wieck's brand of "investigative journalism."

Since it can be shown that iron microspheres can be produced by "zero wind, a bic lighter & a steel brillo pad", what idiot said that it required "hurricane winds & blast furnace-like temperatures" to produce them??

Let me take a wild guess...

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Ron told me that he did try to get a response from RJ Lee, but didn't get one. I am merely relaying the message here, so don't shoot me.
I don't consider this as bizarre.

You don't consider it explanatory, either.

Why, if such spheres and other kinds of melted and boiled particles are created through common fire events, wouldn't RJ Lee simply have said this? Why invent rust flakes, hurricane winds and blast-furnace like temperatures? Why is Jim Millette looking further into the microspheres if they are as common as melted Brillo pads?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

You don't consider it explanatory, either.

Why, if such spheres and other kinds of melted and boiled particles are created through common fire events, wouldn't RJ Lee simply have said this? Why invent rust flakes, hurricane winds and blast-furnace like temperatures? Why is Jim Millette looking further into the microspheres if they are as common as melted Brillo pads?

Correct, I think that RJ Lee shot some unnecessary just-so story from the hip, and forgot the obvious: microspheres are common in many types of ashes. Also, their high value of almost 6% by weight is an outlier; dust samples from many other locations showed the usual 1.5-2.5% or so concentration of iron.

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

Twoofers claim, without actually making a complete argument, that iron microspheres were created by thermite and nothing else. Ergo, can you confirm that this is indeed what twoofers like you claim?

[Voodoosix]

dont welders and electrical shorts produce these "spheres" as well?

[Oystein]

Lots of processes do. Questions are: How much? And what are we actually talking about chemically - pure iron, iron oxide, or mixed bags of stuff with notable iron content?

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

Well.

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

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

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

Truthers, who marvel at the high concentration of iron spheres in the dust and claim it comes from thermite, apparently never wonder why there wasn't an equal amount (by weight; twice as much by volume) of alumina also found in all the dust samples.

• RJ Lee didn't find lots of Al (the same table that has the infamous just under 6% iron spheres shows "Hi Temp Si/Al-rich" particles as 0.54% by weight - typically about half of that could be described as Al_xO_y).
• Lioy e.al. found the total Al concentration in three dust samples to be under 0.1%.
• McGee e.al. found between 0.6% and 2.4% Al in the smallest fraction (<2.5 µm) of WTC dust - this is signifacntly less than the Al concentration found in several non-NYC control samples (Washington DC ambient air; oil fly ash; Mount Saint Helens ash).

In summary: Truthers have no explanation for iron microspheres that isn't contradicted by other evidence, such as the low concentration of Al, and the absence of alumina spheres.

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by ergo

You don't consider it explanatory, either.

Why, if such spheres and other kinds of melted and boiled particles are created through common fire events, wouldn't RJ Lee simply have said this? Why invent rust flakes, hurricane winds and blast-furnace like temperatures? Why is Jim Millette looking further into the microspheres if they are as common as melted Brillo pads?

Notice your above comment is questioning the questioners, not admitting the iron spheres as "not evidence." Since they are common, the real question would be why truthers still insist on seeing them as evidence of anything?

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Lots of processes do. Questions are: How much? And what are we actually talking about chemically - pure iron, iron oxide, or mixed bags of stuff with notable iron content?

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

Well.

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

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

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

Truthers, who marvel at the high concentration of iron spheres in the dust and claim it comes from thermite, apparently never wonder why there wasn't an equal amount (by weight; twice as much by volume) of alumina also found in all the dust samples.

• RJ Lee didn't find lots of Al (the same table that has the infamous just under 6% iron spheres shows "Hi Temp Si/Al-rich" particles as 0.54% by weight - typically about half of that could be described as Al_xO_y).
• Lioy e.al. found the total Al concentration in three dust samples to be under 0.1%.
• McGee e.al. found between 0.6% and 2.4% Al in the smallest fraction (<2.5 µm) of WTC dust - this is signifacntly less than the Al concentration found in several non-NYC control samples (Washington DC ambient air; oil fly ash; Mount Saint Helens ash).

In summary: Truthers have no explanation for iron microspheres that isn't contradicted by other evidence, such as the low concentration of Al, and the absence of alumina spheres.

If by some chance, Jones or Harrit ever try to peddle their bilge in my neighborhood, I want to ask them two questions (unless I have to pay to get in):

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

2. Have you checked for the presence of actual paint chips? If not, why not? If you did, how did you test for paint chips, and how do they differ from thermite?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Correct, I think that RJ Lee shot some unnecessary just-so story from the hip, and forgot the obvious: microspheres are common in many types of ashes. Also, their high value of almost 6% by weight is an outlier; dust samples from many other locations showed the usual 1.5-2.5% or so concentration of iron.

You think RJ Lee Group "forgot" that microspheres are common products of common fires? Heh.

Quote:

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

This is highly unlikely. Millette has already fulfilled his obligation to Chris Mohr. He no more needs to investigate a phenomenon that folks like yourselves declare is "commonplace" than he needs to, in your minds, do a DSC test. If he has already, to your minds, "proven" that there was no thermitic material in the WTC dust, and won't even do a DSC test to replicate the findings he is attempting to disprove, why would he go into further study of something that is, to your minds, "unremarkable"? According to his own stated findings, there is no need to study the microspheres, just as there is "no need" to do DSC. So why do one and not the other?

If some of you actually made some effort to apply consistency in the so-called logic that you like to use, you might ask yourselves tahe same question. But you don't. And you don't.

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Voodoosix

dont welders and electrical shorts produce these "spheres" as well?

Are you old enough to remember the opening credits to NYPD Blue? Drums beating & subway train flying down the tracks, giving off lots of sparks. Steel wheels on steel rails. What temp do you think those type of sparks are?

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

LOTS of processes produce arcs between metals. Lots of times, those metals are steel or other iron alloys.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

You think RJ Lee Group "forgot" that microspheres are common products of common fires? Heh.

Certainly not. Or else their report would not have contained this:

Quote:

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

Many years later now, someone asked Rich to explain "iron-sphere", and the relatively high concentration of supposedly almost 6%. I think what Rich forgot there, when he made up a vivid story for the layman who asked him, was that a) the spheres are usually iron-rich, not iron and b) their value is an extreme outlier, compared to what other researchers found.

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

Originally Posted by ergo

This is highly unlikely. Millette has already fulfilled his obligation to Chris Mohr. ...

True, but Chris is a charming man and asked Millette about it, and perhaps Millette is a nice man and still does it, even though it goes beyond his obligation.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Many years later now, someone asked Rich to explain "iron-sphere", and the relatively high concentration of supposedly almost 6%. I think what Rich forgot there, when he made up a vivid story for the layman who asked him, was that a) the spheres are usually iron-rich, not iron and b) their value is an extreme outlier, compared to what other researchers found.

So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

True, but Chris is a charming man and asked Millette about it, and perhaps Millette is a nice man and still does it, even though it goes beyond his obligation.

What would Chris have asked Millette about the microspheres, and what would Millette be investigating about them?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.

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

Why do you insist on remaining in ignorance on 911?

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by ergo

What would Chris have asked Millette about the microspheres, and what would Millette be investigating about them?

Hi Ergo,

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

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

Unfortunately, he also explained to me that now that the project is unfunded, it has to take a back seat to his paid commitments at his lab. In addition, an employee who took a strong interest in this would work on it whenever it was a slow day at the office, so progress was made just because that employee took on some of the work. Now that this employee has changed jobs, no one on his staff is taking as strong an interest in it. The final results are not yet in, but that's where we are as of September 1....

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by ergo

So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.

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

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

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


[1] The McCrone Particla Atlas, Volume III, Edition Two (Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1973), which is probably the standard reference for any scientist who wishes to identify the origin of dust particles, shows fractions of various types of ashes on pages 775 to 780. Of the 18 examples presented there, more than half have spheres specifically pointed out, 13 are dominated by Al, Si and Fe (this is mostly scanning a variety of particles shown in the SEM images; O and C were not measured with the 1973 equipment).

[Robrob]

Originally Posted by ergo

So, in your mind, RJ Lee Group decided to "make up" a "vivid story", rather than simply inform Ron in plain language that iron microspheres are common and expected in residue from office fires?

It seems to me that you're the one making things up here.

Funny how you are overlooking Ron's error in the first place. Why would he claim "iron-rich micro-spheres" were unique and proof of something when they weren't?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

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

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

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

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

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by ergo

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

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

Hi Ergo,

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

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

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

Please take the time to read all three of my posts starting with the one I've linked for you. You'll see that Kevin Ryan is the source of your misunderstanding about Millette.

[ergo]

Thank you for the link to Millette's first paper. However, to ignore the spherical shape of the iron particles found in the dust is to ignore the processes by which they were formed. As well, if iron microspheres are so unremarkable, then it would have been routine for Millette to have mentioned them in that study, along with all the other particles.

You say as well that Millette "reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron" but I don't see where he says that in the article you linked to. Can you provide a quote for that?

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by ergo

Thank you for the link to Millette's first paper. However, to ignore the spherical shape of the iron particles found in the dust is to ignore the processes by which they were formed. As well, if iron microspheres are so unremarkable, then it would have been routine for Millette to have mentioned them in that study, along with all the other particles.

You say as well that Millette "reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron" but I don't see where he says that in the article you linked to. Can you provide a quote for that?

From my post: " “…the SEM dispersive X-ray analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium, which are major components of construction materials.” He reported on large quantities of dust-size particles of iron but didn’t specifically use the term “iron-rich microspheres.” Is it fair to call that “deception”?

Now since he was analyzing dust, it was my words when I said he was talking about dust-sized particles. It seemed like not too big a leap to say that someone analyzing dust reported on dust-sized particles. If it were big blonbs of iron, for exampele, that would not be dust.

[ergo]

Well, let's be clear on what he said. He did not say "dust-sized iron particles" anywhere in that article. Nor did he "report on large quantities" of such. He mentioned that "SEM ... analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium" and that they analyzed "chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments" and "iron-chromium particles". That's all he mentions.

So on the one hand you accuse Kevin Ryan of being deceptive, but I can't help but notice that you yourself have misrepresented what Millette originally reported on.

[beachnut]

http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm

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

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

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

911 truth followers fail to do the research to save them from spreading lies they plagiarize from paranoid conspiracy nuts. Iron rich spheres, many sources, and no thermite found at the WTC.

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by ergo

Well, let's be clear on what he said. He did not say "dust-sized iron particles" anywhere in that article. Nor did he "report on large quantities" of such. He mentioned that "SEM ... analyses showed large signals for iron and calcium" and that they analyzed "chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments" and "iron-chromium particles". That's all he mentions.

So on the one hand you accuse Kevin Ryan of being deceptive, but I can't help but notice that you yourself have misrepresented what Millette originally reported on.

Wrong. When analyzing dust it is reasonable to say that the particles being analyzed were dust-sized. "Large signals" for iron can be interpreted in lay terms to mean that Millette duly reported lots of iron in his findings on the WTC dust but merely did not report on the spherical shape. Kevin Ryan insinuates that Millette was deliberately decpetive in not mentioning the iron microspheres.

What I said are not distortions, they are summaries in lay language. Kevin Ryan did not correctly summarize what Millette said or what was said about Millette. It was a false ad hominem attack. Please acknowledge that that is what he did after re-reading my posts.

[000063]

I'm pretty sure Ergo is JAQing off until he finds a Gotcha, like post 2306. Problem is, even when he does, it's either wrong or irrelevant. I'm not sure if he's being disingenuous or he honestly doesn't understand, but ignoring posts like 2300 is rather suspect.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Wrong. When analyzing dust it is reasonable to say that the particles being analyzed were dust-sized. "Large signals" for iron can be interpreted in lay terms to mean that Millette duly reported lots of iron in his findings

And lots of calcium, too. "Large quantities" of dust-sized calcium particles.

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

Quote:

but merely did not report on the spherical shape.

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

Quote:

Kevin Ryan insinuates that Millette was deliberately decpetive in not mentioning the iron microspheres.

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

Quote:

What I said are not distortions, they are summaries in lay language.

Saved for posterity.

Quote:

Kevin Ryan did not correctly summarize what Millette said or what was said about Millette.

Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, Stephen Kennedy, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

... Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.

False, the USGS didn't not report a "large quantities" of iron micro-spheres. Prove it! SOURCE please.

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

Spreading lies; why?

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


Prove it, source by page numbers with the data.

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by ergo

And lots of calcium, too. "Large quantities" of dust-sized calcium particles.

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




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




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




Saved for posterity.




Millette did not report large quantities of iron microspheres, where RJ Lee, Stephen Kennedy, the USGS, and the ATM authors did. That is a fact that you can't bend in any way in your attempts to "interpret" things for the lay reader.

Kevin Ryan is wrong as sin. Look at my links again and you'll see how he distorted Cate Jenkins, who said Millette's research had a high level of integrity, and made it sound like Millette was guilty of deliberate distortion. he is not. He was doing a study for the EPA on the environmental hazards of the WTC dust. The shape of the iron microspheres was not relevant to that study, and he duly reported high readings for iron. Kevin Ryan said he ignored the iron but he didn't.

Look Ergo, I have stood up for Richard Gage and other 9/11 Truth people repeatedly on thread after thread here on JREF. Gotten some people real frustrated with me too. It's your turn. Stop being an apologist for Kevin Ryan's ad hominem attacks. Look over what I said about Cate Jenkins and tell me the truth: was Kevin Ryan being honest in his insinuations and attacks against Millette? No. He was not. You lose all credibility when you try to tell me Kevin Ryan is being honest here. He is not.

[Oystein]

Sorry to dig this up, and perhaps this is not exactly news. But Major_Tom has documented for posterity an email-exchange between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on Jones's "microspheres" discoveries and how to interprete them that took place in the northern winter 2007/08:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=186:186

It is mostly Greening explaining the many species of oxides, silicates and what not of Fe, Al, Ca, K and others that are found in all kinds of ashes and why they form spheres well under the melting point of the pure substances, and Jones asking stupid rhetorical questions and eventually abandoning the debate.

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Sorry to dig this up, and perhaps this is not exactly news. But Major_Tom has documented for posterity an email-exchange between Steven Jones and Frank Greening on Jones's "microspheres" discoveries and how to interprete them that took place in the northern winter 2007/08:
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=186:186

It is mostly Greening explaining the many species of oxides, silicates and what not of Fe, Al, Ca, K and others that are found in all kinds of ashes and why they form spheres well under the melting point of the pure substances, and Jones asking stupid rhetorical questions and eventually abandoning the debate.

That will be a valuable reference if anyone ever writes up a history of the Truthers as part of a study of science quackery.

[ergo]

It's actually an inconclusive debate, and the way it is presented chronologically makes it hard to follow. At least, though, it is a debate between two competent scientists.

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

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by ergo

It's actually an inconclusive debate, and the way it is presented chronologically makes it hard to follow. At least, though, it is a debate between two competent scientists.

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

Yes, and just remember:

Inconclusive = you have no proof they mean anything.

[000063]

Originally Posted by LSSBB

Yes, and just remember:

Inconclusive = you have no proof they mean anything.

It's almost as if he wants so desperately to believe in magic nanothermite(/)explosives, he's ignoring all the other evidence against their existence.

[fitzgibbon]

Originally Posted by 000063

It's almost as if he wants so desperately to believe in magic nanothermite(/)explosives, he's ignoring all the other evidence against their existence.

Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by fitzgibbon

Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz

Did it ever leave the faith stage???

[000063]

Originally Posted by fitzgibbon

Could this be the next iteration of 'trutherdom'? Taking a page from the L. Ron Hubbard book and Richard Gage founding the International Church of 9/11 Truth? I mean, 'trutherdom' is an act of faith in that which cannot be proved/has been disproved.

Just Askin' Questions
Fitz

"Next"?

[chrismohr]

Three weeks ago I challenged Ergo: "was Kevin Ryan being honest in his insinuations and attacks against Millette? No. He was not. You lose all credibility when you try to tell me Kevin Ryan is being honest here. He is not." I was referring to this:

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

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

Ergo, you are no victim. You are willfully evading the truth and you don't deserve the moniker "truther" because truth is not what you care about.