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.
Reply
Old 23rd April 2014, 08:44 AM   #121
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
How many ways can this be put?

Even if you allow for hypothetical scenarios where some iron-rich microspheres were created at WTC on 9/11, you still cannot account for the chemistry of the iron-rich micro-spheroids produced by igniting dormant 9/11 WTC dust chips.

As you know, chemist Mark Basile claims to have ignited hundreds of these 9/11 WTC dust chips at ~430C.

In his before and after analysis, Mark observed that these iron-rich microspheres did not exist until after ignition.

The spheroid shapes gave proof that the iron-rich spheres were in a previously molten state.

A completed sphere is the economical form that occurs when molten iron is freed into the atmosphere.

Repeated data showing micro-spheroids with iron to oxygen ratios ranging from 2:1 to 4:1, proved that this material's ignition produced elemental iron.

You keep reaching 'hither and yon' for some iron-rich process that would at best, explain only a fraction of the tonnage of this material found throughout the 9/11 WTC site.

The investigative journalists I've known, would never have concluded the red chip material was primer paint until it could be shown that primer paint would behave that way.

They would NEVER blindly assume that Dr. Millette's chosen red chips, when heated to ~430C would produce comparable results to those described in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Why not admit that Dr. Harrit et al's findings are untenable with what you choose to believe?




So much for it being common knowledge among folks who study the refining, smelting, purity and chemistry of iron.

I look forward to the results of Mark Basile's current study on the 9/11 WTC dust chips.

MM
Would that be Mark Basile's study ? I thought it was to be carried out by an independent lab ?

Sounds like an inside job to me

Did Mark actually manage to get hold of some WTC dust chips ?

Last edited by Spanx; 23rd April 2014 at 09:07 AM.
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 23rd April 2014, 09:13 AM   #122
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
How many ways can this be put?

Even if you allow for hypothetical scenarios where some iron-rich microspheres were created at WTC on 9/11, you still cannot account for the chemistry of the iron-rich micro-spheroids produced by igniting dormant 9/11 WTC dust chips.

As you know, chemist Mark Basile claims to have ignited hundreds of these 9/11 WTC dust chips at ~430C.

In his before and after analysis, Mark observed that these iron-rich microspheres did not exist until after ignition.

The spheroid shapes gave proof that the iron-rich spheres were in a previously molten state.

A completed sphere is the economical form that occurs when molten iron is freed into the atmosphere.

Repeated data showing micro-spheroids with iron to oxygen ratios ranging from 2:1 to 4:1, proved that this material's ignition produced elemental iron.

You keep reaching 'hither and yon' for some iron-rich process that would at best, explain only a fraction of the tonnage of this material found throughout the 9/11 WTC site.

The investigative journalists I've known, would never have concluded the red chip material was primer paint until it could be shown that primer paint would behave that way.

They would NEVER blindly assume that Dr. Millette's chosen red chips, when heated to ~430C would produce comparable results to those described in the 2009 Bentham paper.

Why not admit that Dr. Harrit et al's findings are untenable with what you choose to believe?




So much for it being common knowledge among folks who study the refining, smelting, purity and chemistry of iron.

I look forward to the results of Mark Basile's current study on the 9/11 WTC dust chips.

MM
Where is the study of chips of paint on metal, put to the same tests, for comparison?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2014, 10:30 AM   #123
Chorduroy
Scholar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 51
I've brought this up before, but it bears repeating.

Harrit himself stated in an interview that the moment he first saw video of WTC7 collapsing he "KNEW" it was controlled demolition. This was his firm belief - obviously before conducting any experiments to find magical thermite.

His conclusions, in my opinion, are enormously biased.
Chorduroy 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 23rd April 2014, 10:56 AM   #124
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Chorduroy View Post
I've brought this up before, but it bears repeating.

Harrit himself stated in an interview that the moment he first saw video of WTC7 collapsing he "KNEW" it was controlled demolition. This was his firm belief - obviously before conducting any experiments to find magical thermite.

His conclusions, in my opinion, are enormously biased.
Who is totally neutral?

Having some bias is a far cry from falsifying scientific research.

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 23rd April 2014 at 10:58 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 23rd April 2014, 12:22 PM   #125
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,674
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Passing along another thing Ziggi has responded to about the iron-rich spheres in response to Myriad and Dave Thomas: The ratios of iron to oxygen in Harrit/Jones's spheres range from 2:1 to as high as 4:1 in their Figure 21 in the thermitic paper. That means that after ignition of their chips, at least half to 3/4 of the iron oxide has been reduced to elemental iron, since even FeO is a 1:1 ratio.
Figure 21 is accompanied by this text:
Using back-scattered electron (BSE) imaging, spheres were selected in the post-DSC residue which appeared to be rich in iron. An example is shown in Fig. (21) along with the corresponding XEDS spectrum for this sphere.
This means that they had to search for such spheres. There's no estimation of the density of these spheres, only that "spheres with predominately iron and some oxygen are also seen in the post-ignition residue", but it seems to me that they were by no means ubiquitous. You don't expect that from burning thermite. You should get lots of pure iron spheres. And certainly not accompanied by a lot of unreacted rhomboidal iron oxide crystals or hexagonal kaolin platelets as figure 21 depicts. That last point has been made by Sunstealer several times.

I find it troubling that they show the spheroids formed in figure 20 (which look a lot like some that Ivan produced by scraping red paint with rust and heating it) but they don't actually show any XEDS of these spheroids. The ones in fig. 20 look nothing like the ones in fig. 25.

I think that's another piece of evidence that they are are cherry-picking data which fits what they want to prove and rejecting that which doesn't.
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 23rd April 2014, 12:24 PM   #126
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,674
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Beachnut,
You know perfectly well that me saying that I respect the raw data of Harrit/Jones in no way means I agree with the conclusions they drew. Do you think they reported false data? I don't. Oystein and Ivan haven't. Sunstealer looked at the data and it was respetable enough for him to conclude they were looking at paint.
I do think that their data is accurate, but cherry-picked. One thing doesn't exclude the other.
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 23rd April 2014, 12:52 PM   #127
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Who is totally neutral?

Having some bias is a far cry from falsifying scientific research.

MM
Not for nuthin'

but...

aren't the people who are supposed to be doing your new investigation supposed to be neutral? That's the point you people have been harping on since day one.
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 23rd April 2014, 01:32 PM   #128
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Leching at tractors (in Wales)
Posts: 27,804
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
They would NEVER blindly assume that Dr. Millette's chosen red chips, when heated to ~430C would produce comparable results to those described in the 2009 Bentham paper.
I thought you'd dropped the idea that Harrit had better ways to choose the 'right' chips than Millette did?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 23rd April 2014, 01:35 PM   #129
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I thought you'd dropped the idea that Harrit had better ways to choose the 'right' chips than Millette did?
That's the problem with these people. Too many stories to keep track of, unlike reality, which only has the one.
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 23rd April 2014, 01:40 PM   #130
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Leching at tractors (in Wales)
Posts: 27,804
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That's the problem with these people. Too many stories to keep track of, unlike reality, which only has the one.
Sad but true. And it's all written down, here, in black and white.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 23rd April 2014, 02:45 PM   #131
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,072
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Beachnut,
You know perfectly well that me saying that I respect the raw data of Harrit/Jones in no way means I agree with the conclusions they drew. Do you think they reported false data? I don't. Oystein and Ivan haven't. Sunstealer looked at the data and it was respetable enough for him to conclude they were looking at paint.
You mean with respect to the data, it was not thermite. ...

One metal guy said he has no clue where iron spheres come from, he hand no clue iron bearing substances would lead to iron in a fire? When you were a kid did you run a magnet through the ashes of a fire? Guess what?
Cement?
Gypsum?
Toner?
Iron.

Last edited by beachnut; 23rd April 2014 at 03:36 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 23rd April 2014, 06:01 PM   #132
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
Where is the study of chips of paint on metal, put to the same tests, for comparison?

Never will da Twoof, do this. That IS science!
Dog Town 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 23rd April 2014, 08:13 PM   #133
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

Why not admit that Dr. Harrit et al's findings are untenable with what you choose to believe?

MM
WOW!


Dog Town 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 23rd April 2014, 09:46 PM   #134
LudicFallacies
Scholar
 
LudicFallacies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Who is totally neutral?

Having some bias is a far cry from falsifying scientific research.

MM
I find it incredible that people such as you still believe in the 9/11 conspiracy considering so many people have spent the effort and time explaining what happened to you.

I'm sure you are aware of all the known facts and yet you still manage to hold onto your delusions.

Why is this? Do you have some kinda psychological need to believe in the 9/11 conspiracy?

I'd like to give you a chance to put forward the three pieces of confirmed evidence/fact that you believe supports your notion of a 9/11 conspiracy.

Please do so.

The three best pieces of what you deem as evidence to support your claims of a 9/11 conspiracy.
LudicFallacies 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 26th April 2014, 06:40 AM   #135
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Here are some updates of Ziggi Zugman's blogs. In this one:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...es-out-of.html
He has his own explanations for why Dave Thomas found iron-rich spheres in a regular fire: "In sum, the three most likely sources for Mr. Thomasīs spheres are:

1. The spheres are already present as filler material in the paint.
2. Dave (accidentally?) made those spheres himself while he cut those beams via the friction from a cutting wheel, or a band-saw.
3. He partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before he lit the fire. Or he simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content."
As I said to to him personlly, he has just given three non-thermitic explanations of how the "signature" iron-rich spheres can be formed.
Here is another Ziggi vs Dave Thomas article re the steel wool experiment:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...ked-again.html
I miss Oystein, it would have been good to get his feedback now.
This is about the ferrihydrate (Myriad):
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...rihydrite.html
Here Zugman says "You need a temperature of about 1250C for iron reduction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting
Your buddy GlenB even noted this on the forum the other day:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=4527
This is above the maximum temperature he believes was attained in the WTC fires. And even here, without melting you don't get the iron-rich spheres which require getting all the way to melting point.
As I've mentioned here before, I thought I'd just look in textbooks and WikiAnswers to see how iron oxide reduction happens and I found this:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_can_ir...rom_iron_oxide
Wood fire, iron oxide covered in sand, voila, iron oxide reduction!
Ziggi rejects this and says this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, that his published papers show iron redux requires above-normal-fire temps.
Would anyone like to do this simple experiment and videotape the results for us? You'd have to be able to measure the iron-rich content of what's left behind after the fire.
No time for more comments now...
__________________
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 26th April 2014, 09:55 AM   #136
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 18,905
Can I see the links to where truthers have demonstrated making iron microspheres of the observed size distribution using thermite?
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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 26th April 2014, 10:21 AM   #137
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Iron reduction experiment

Hi gang,
Don't ask me why I am bothering, but here goes with me trying to organize a FIFTH experiment to test claims made by people in 9/11 Truth. Remember how I organized a thermite test with Jim Millette? Kevin Ryan trashed him personally and then wouldn't allow me a chance to rebut his ad hominem attack on his blog. Then Steven Jones said Millette got the wrong chips. Niels Harrit said Millette's hasn't been published and therefore merits no response at all.
Another claim of 9/11 Truth: iron-rich spheres can be created only at temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron, and therefore could not have been created in the regular fires of WTC 9/11. Ivan burned primer paint on steel and found microspheres that are an excellent photographic match for the iron-rich microspheres claimed by Harrit/Jones. But he died before he could test their iron-richness. We have photo evidence, however, of spheres being created in a regular fire with primer paint and steel. Then I goaded Dave Thomas into two experiments: one a simple burning steel wool demonstration, which showed more phtographic evidence of some kind of spheres. But the real kicker was his SECOND experiment, which was another burning-paint-on-steel demonstration. And ANOTHER microsphere! And this time measured to PROVE a VERY rich iron content! Still not good enough for Ziggi and friends. It's not published, it's contaminated, etc.
So with that stellar record of acceptance of the results of multiple experiments I have encouraged, I am asking a fifth time if anyone wants to try this demonstration from Wiki Answers. It answers the question, how to reduce iron oxide to iron? The answer? "WikiAnswers "The iron went through oxidization to become Iron oxide, so it needs to go through reduction to extract the iron again, which is the opposite chemical reaction to oxidization. Do ItYourself method: Get sawdust, sand, a metal trash can or a basin type thing, anything heat resistant. Make a ring of sand on the ground, and line the basin up so that the rim is all immersed in sand, this is to ensure that the reduction chamber is air-tight. Then make a birdsnest of sawdust inside the ring of sand. Put the Iron oxide in the saw dust and light the saw dust on fire. Quickly throw another handful or so of sawdust on top and, again quickly, put the basin over the ring of sand. Repeat If necessary. Wait, then remove the chamber. You should have some iron metal." Another WikiAnswers question: Iron can be made from iron oxide by heating the iron oxide with? "A reducing agent like Hydrogen(H2), Carbon(C), Carbon monoxide(CO) or Ammonia(NH3).” It was not clear what temperature this kind of reduction takes place at. But obviously, the DoItYourself method listed above involves only a regular fire. Whoever does this will have to find a way of measuring the iron metal residue to see if it is indeed reduced iron.
Now, this would demonstrate that iron oxide reduction to iron CAN take place at less than the 2300F or so normal iron oxide reduction temp. But it still wouldn't prove iron-rich micropsheres can be created BY COOKING PAINT at lower temps. I think Ivan AND Dave were on track to demonstrate that with their experiments, but that is a different thing: just looking at the iron-rich part of the equation.
Any takers?
__________________
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 26th April 2014, 10:32 AM   #138
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Whoever does this will have to find a way of measuring the iron metal residue to see if it is indeed reduced iron.
My son said he'd do it but, wants to know why you want this proof if it's only to "debunk" a claim that does not actually have any proof of it's own?

His mother is a PhD chemist. If she says it is, is that OK?
__________________
"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 26th April 2014, 10:35 AM   #139
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
Truthers do not listen to anything but Truther crap

Why bother ? If you show them evidence that does not support their claim they just disappear until the subject is changed.
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 26th April 2014, 10:43 AM   #140
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Myriad, Dave, Beachnut and Ziggi

Catching you up on Ziggi's assertions:

Beachnut repeatedly compares the DSC curve of known nanothermite and the red-grey chips. With both ignition temps and energy release drastically off, he says there is no way this can be thermite. Ziggi says this is untrue, that this is a different kind of thermite, that they often ignite at different temps. So OK, I could say these contrasting DSC curves don't DISPROVE thermite; THEY PROVE NOTHING. And as has been pointed out, there is no known thermite, thermate or nanothermite that ignites at 430C. The only product I know of that ignites at 430C is Analytyka's iron flakes! (Hmmmm could this just be ignition of the iron in the chips?). Ah, says Ziggi, but the DSC just shows a strong exothermic reaction, in the same SHAPE as thermite! Well, in five minutes of googling I found plenty of DSC curves of igniting stuff with the same general sharp peak. If Beachnuit says these curves DISPROVE thermite, the most generous thing I can say to Ziggi is, it may not DISPROVE thermite, but it sure don't prove nuthin'!

Then Ziggi claims that there are broad, gentle curves whenever the Harrit/Jones team burns paint. But did Ivan's fake LaClede chips and other paint-on-metal chips ignite? Does anyone remember?

Myriad's claim that it is not clear whether the 4:1 ratio of iron to oxygen is based on weight or atomic count is soundly rekjected by Ziggi. Not being an expert on the matter, I am willing to give Ziggi the benefit of the doubt and assume that indeed Harrit's burnt chips showed ratios of 2:1 to as high as 4:1 by atomic count, not weight. After all, Rich Lee's report did talk about "iron rich", and one of Millette's reports showed "high iron content" in the dust. Having talked to Millette last year about this, he does believe that the iron-rich spheres are indeed iron-rich and wants to study this further (an interest he reasserted just a couople weeks ago). I don't think it's a stretch to accept the iron-richness of the spheres Harrit/Jones report on, because the EDX spectra show it (like Fig 21). The main question is, since these have been formed from burning these chips, how do we explain their presence? Since Ivan and Dave's demonstrations have failed to impress Ziggi et al, what WOULD impress tham?

Myriad also has hypothesized about iron oxide reduction, perhaps as a multi-stage process with gradual reduction and loss of oxygen step-by-step. Ziggi rejects that possibility unless the temperature is around 2300F, and has offered links to published papers in support of his assertion. This is why I am hoping someone will carry out this demonstration. It's time to get to the lab again, I believe, to see if iron oxide reduction can happen in an ordinary fire...
__________________
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 26th April 2014, 10:50 AM   #141
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
My son said he'd do it but, wants to know why you want this proof if it's only to "debunk" a claim that does not actually have any proof of it's own?

His mother is a PhD chemist. If she says it is, is that OK?
Great offer DGM! Your wife's eyeballing analysis would be helpful. It might also be good to keep the iron blobs in a sealed plastic bag and see if we can send a sample of it somewhere (maybe Daved Thomas could help). Tell your son that it may not be easy. I would suggest a very fierce fire, and be prepared to repeat the process at least once on the same stuff right away. According to the WikiAnswers guy, this doesn't happen quick n easy. I hope your son is like I was in my youth: the hotter and fiercer the fire, the happier I was!

Spanx you're right about the Truly Committed. But when I talk to people about all this, they are pretty blown away when I tell them I've goaded people into testing four of the assertions of 9/11 Truth people and so far the 9/11 Truth folks have not fared well. Plus DGM's son will have a blast trying this out! As for "Why I want to do this"? Well, I'm crazy. Plus, I do enjoy testing assertions made to me. We could be wrong, you know. If we can't reduce the iron oxide flakes to iron, that will be a good result to report on as well. Right now we have contradictory claims made by Ziggi and his links vs my WikiAnswers "regular fire" technique of iron oxide reduction. Which is true? I'll just stay tuned.
__________________
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

Last edited by chrismohr; 26th April 2014 at 10:54 AM. Reason: why answer
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 26th April 2014, 11:00 AM   #142
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
So what can we expect from truthers when DGM's son has carried out this experiment ?

It's not peer reviewed

A false experiment with fake materials

DGM's Son has the wrong colour hair

He was paid off

.......................................

Just to add, all the while truthers are sitting back just coming out with BS and doing no experiments.

Last edited by Spanx; 26th April 2014 at 11:02 AM.
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 26th April 2014, 11:13 AM   #143
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Great offer DGM! Your wife's eyeballing analysis would be helpful. It might also be good to keep the iron blobs in a sealed plastic bag and see if we can send a sample of it somewhere (maybe Daved Thomas could help). Tell your son that it may not be easy. I would suggest a very fierce fire, and be prepared to repeat the process at least once on the same stuff right away. According to the WikiAnswers guy, this doesn't happen quick n easy. I hope your son is like I was in my youth: the hotter and fiercer the fire, the happier I was!
It's my ex-wife but that doesn't really matter. She's read the Harrit paper (along with some of her colleagues) and she has no idea why you pay any attention to this. The paper (in her/and others words) does not support their conclusions. It's gotten the recognition it deserves already (her words). Her suggestion is to submit the paper under your name to any legitimate journal and publish the replys you get.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Plus DGM's son will have a blast trying this out!
No doubt.
__________________
"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 26th April 2014, 11:17 AM   #144
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by Spanx View Post

DGM's Son has the wrong colour hair
Actually considering myself and his mother, I think it's about right.
__________________
"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 26th April 2014, 01:28 PM   #145
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Great offer DGM! Your wife's eyeballing analysis would be helpful. It might also be good to keep the iron blobs in a sealed plastic bag and see if we can send a sample of it somewhere (maybe Daved Thomas could help). Tell your son that it may not be easy. I would suggest a very fierce fire, and be prepared to repeat the process at least once on the same stuff right away. According to the WikiAnswers guy, this doesn't happen quick n easy. I hope your son is like I was in my youth: the hotter and fiercer the fire, the happier I was!

Spanx you're right about the Truly Committed. But when I talk to people about all this, they are pretty blown away when I tell them I've goaded people into testing four of the assertions of 9/11 Truth people and so far the 9/11 Truth folks have not fared well. Plus DGM's son will have a blast trying this out! As for "Why I want to do this"? Well, I'm crazy. Plus, I do enjoy testing assertions made to me. We could be wrong, you know. If we can't reduce the iron oxide flakes to iron, that will be a good result to report on as well. Right now we have contradictory claims made by Ziggi and his links vs my WikiAnswers "regular fire" technique of iron oxide reduction. Which is true? I'll just stay tuned.
Chris, we can arrange to do SEM/EDX of more samples if it would be helpful. Our science group supports such endeavors - last week we helped out on a study of material purportedly from the Roswell spaceship.

On the larger question of Ziggi's complaints, I acknowledge that I have more to learn about the specifics of iron microsphere formation. Since I don't have enough information currently, I am planning on asking some experts for help on answering the important question - at what sample sizes and temperatures do iron-rich microspheres form?

But that could take time. Don't worry too much about Zugam, Chris, his ranting and raving isn't getting much traction at all, as far as I can see. Tell him to be patient, quality science takes time.

Last edited by DaveThomasNMSR; 26th April 2014 at 01:29 PM. Reason: got words order of wrong
DaveThomasNMSR 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 26th April 2014, 01:52 PM   #146
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post

But that could take time. Don't worry too much about Zugam, Chris, his ranting and raving isn't getting much traction at all, as far as I can see. Tell him to be patient, quality science takes time.

^this^

Chris. I'll help you with this as much as you need. I would like however a clear objective as to where we're going with this.

Let me know.
__________________
"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 26th April 2014, 02:28 PM   #147
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
^this^

Chris. I'll help you with this as much as you need. I would like however a clear objective as to where we're going with this.

Let me know.
Thanks DGM. There are two related claims made by 9/11 Truth, both based on the assertion that the iron-rich spheres could not have been created in an ordinary fire:

1) That iron reduction starts to take place at 1250 C (2282F). Ordinary fires top out at around 1800F, so iron reduction is evidence of temperatures above what can be created in an ordinary fire.
2) That iron microspheres are created at only the melting point of steel (around 2750F or 1510C). Ziggi has linked us to several papers that support both contentions.

Part two has been dealt with by both Ivan and Dave: burning paint-on-steel in ordinary fires, and Dave was actually able to measure the iron-richness of a couple post-burn microspheres. Their experiments indicate to me that there's more to this than just the melting point of steel, but to be blunt, we have to do the experiments because there isn't much literature on this. Dave is revisiting his explanation of HOW these microspheres could have been formed at regular fire temperatures, but the initial data showing THAT IT HAPPENED looks good. RJ Lee's explanation involves hurricane-force winds blowing iron oxide around in a very hot fire. But at what temperatuire he believes this might happen is not said by him, and he is not responding to further inquiries.

So now we come to the iron oxide reduction question for you and your son: does this happen ONLY at 1250C (2282F) or can it happen somehow at lower temperatures? If your son cooks up some iron oxide flakes and we end up with reduced iron as the WikiAnswers guy claims, that will demonstrate that iron oxide reduction can take place in an ordinary fire. If he fails, it may mean the experiment wasn't quite done right, or that Ziggi is right. Now, I have read that carbon-based fires in buildings can get as high as 2200F, about 100 degrees lower than the standard temp for iron reduction. Most sources quote 1800F as the max for a regular carbon-based fire.

Right now it's WikiAnswers (claiming iron oxide reduction to iron at regular fire temps) vs Ziggi's links (showing iron oxide reduction to iron at the very high temperature of 1250C). Jim Millette has wanted to research this but hasn't had time in two years. Your video demonstration may help clarify this, one way or another.

Is that what you need?
__________________
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 26th April 2014, 02:44 PM   #148
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,072
Ziggi wins, he is using his real name, and as we (me and the mouse in my pocket) know real names win in the delusional fantasy land of the super idiotic movement to repeat the dark ages and super witch-hunt for the NWO evil doers who used non-residual no evidence leaving super nano-nano-na-na-na Jones fantasy thermite.

Ziggi wins. Why would you use a DSC to identify thermite, when you can use reality? Jones and his fellow liars on 911 issues have issues. Maybe it is the "war on terror". Lucky for me I retired right after 911, Jones nuts are a detriment to the anti-war movement by spreading delusional lies. There goes their credibility to help the anti-war movement. Maybe stats would help them in efforts, to see we need a war on traffic accidents, our last big terrorists attack was also and anti-recruiting tool for UBL's nuts, who wants to die for BS - it will take 10 to 20 years for UBL-like nuts to recruit dumber than dirt nuts like the 19 who Jones and 911 truth followers fail to acknowledge, due to massive ignorance and some fantasy addiction to spreading lies.

Why use a DSC that does not match in a fake paper?
Why use energy that does not match?
Are there enough clues in Jones paper to prove it is nonsense? Yes, and that is why it is ignored by all rational scientist, at a rate of higher than 99.9 percent.
We are teasing the fringe few now who have not matured, or are too old to cure themselves with education.

Found some more iron stuff in my backyard, oops, thermite and the evil doers were in my back yard... OMG, 5-6 percent of the earths crust is iron - oops, dust has iron in it.

Ziggy can't do chemistry, Ziggy googles his knowledge, and is right, because it is a real name. Does Ziggy know Jones made up thermite did 911? No, Ziggy remains in the 13th year of not doing anything useful but spreading delusions about 911 - how cute, spreading lies and believing in a thermite which leaves no evidence. How much science is that?

That is a real name? right

Does Ziggy know the dust samples are from 6 years after 911? What a failed movement - the only people who take action in 911 truth are nuts who murder people who crash Super Bowl interviews - idiots with lies.

However, it is cool to take science and rub their noses in their piles of BS - keep up the good work. Chris, did you doubt 19 nuts did 911? Ever?

13th year of silly 911 truth Internet BS - http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...rihydrite.html

At least 911 truth is not Hollow - only dumber than dirt.

The cool part about debunkers, even if we are wrong, 911 truth is still based on lies, fantasy, and dumber than dirt claims - like thermite. Keep up the good work Ziggy; failure is easy to achieve, and 911 truth is good at it.

Last edited by beachnut; 26th April 2014 at 02:52 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 26th April 2014, 03:03 PM   #149
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Thanks DGM. There are two related claims made by 9/11 Truth, both based on the assertion that the iron-rich spheres could not have been created in an ordinary fire:
You need to back up the boat. Where is their proof that these "spheres" that they found were produced above the temp they claimed was required. If it was a result of the samples in the DSC they must have the data.

The way I see it. They created "spheres" far below the temp required also. Unless they chose to fudge their temp data.

Start with them first. What temp did their "spheres" appear in their experiments?

Get back to me on this.
__________________
"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 26th April 2014, 03:18 PM   #150
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,072
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...

1) That iron reduction starts to take place at 1250 C (2282F). Ordinary fires top out at around 1800F, so iron reduction is evidence of temperatures above what can be created in an ordinary fire.
2) That iron microspheres are created at only the melting point of steel (around 2750F or 1510C). Ziggi has linked us to several papers that support both contentions.
... Is that what you need?
I (can I borrow 12,000 dollars and a lab - as seen it has already been shown, in equations, like chemistry stuff, and papers) can reduce iron at from 220 to 740 C; too bad 911 truth lies, and in a constant state of terminal stupidity. Give me lots of money and I will do a study...
And you already know this, as you out googled Ziggy, but will Ziggy figure out real papers don't lie like Jones did?
Wait, there is no evidence of thermite on WTC steel. Thermite lies, a product of Jones' insanity - His better work is Christ in the ancient new world. Why does Jones lie about 911?

Did 911 truth miss the USGS dust studies?

This is chemistry, not an opinion debate. 911 truth makes up their claims based on BS. They live in a fantasy, ignore science, and can't grasp 19 murderers did 911. 13th year of failure, a new anti-intellectual branch of failed nuts for 911 truth, stuck on iron spheres, using google to back up claims based on failed opinions.

Ziggi? Who ignores the crushed concrete can release iron spheres, from fly ash in the cement? Is that our Ziggi, the super chemist, or a high school student late to mature?

"Google on" 911 truth followers, it is the only skill they have, besides being loyal followers to a movement of lies and fantasy.

What if they went to a real library with access to real knowledge outside of 911 truth? 911 truth might dustify itself.

Iron in WTC dust is at a rate below and above what is found in the back ground for NYC - 911 truth has failed to make a point other than followers are unable to think for themselves. They fall for CD due to ignorance, and thermite because they love fantasy. Wait till Ziggy find the overwhelming evidence claims are a fantasy too.

Ziggy is good at cherry-picking, out in the orchard of woo with Balsamo.

Last edited by beachnut; 26th April 2014 at 03:19 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 26th April 2014, 03:26 PM   #151
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
You need to back up the boat. Where is their proof that these "spheres" that they found were produced above the temp they claimed was required. If it was a result of the samples in the DSC they must have the data.

The way I see it. They created "spheres" far below the temp required also. Unless they chose to fudge their temp data.

Start with them first. What temp did their "spheres" appear in their experiments?

Get back to me on this.
DGM, I am almost certain that Harrit/Jones never measured the temps attained by the burning chips. In fact, I think 9/11 Truther Snowcrash complained about this publicly and broke off over the Jones/Harrit claims partly on this basis.

I agree with Snowcrash that this is a major flaw in their study.

Oh, and BTW Beachnut, the minute I saw what was happening on 9/11 I thought "terrorist attack." When the buildings collapsed I said in horror, "Thousands of Amerticans just died in a terrorist attack!" I assumed from the start that jumbo jets crashing into buildings and the monster fires they created destroyed the buildings. A few hours later, on CBS I believe I saw Building Seven burning and a somber voice saying this building was predicted to collapse too. Huge plumes of smoke pouring out of the side of the building on live TV made that prediction easy to believe. Never did change my first impression.
__________________
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 26th April 2014, 04:16 PM   #152
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,734
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
DGM, I am almost certain that Harrit/Jones never measured the temps attained by the burning chips. In fact, I think 9/11 Truther Snowcrash complained about this publicly and broke off over the Jones/Harrit claims partly on this basis.

I agree with Snowcrash that this is a major flaw in their study.
So, just so I get this right. You want to do a study to disprove a claim they have no evidence to support?

Why not just say you did and have them try to prove you didn't?
__________________
"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 26th April 2014, 05:11 PM   #153
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Here are some updates of Ziggi Zugman's blogs. In this one:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/201...es-out-of.html
He has his own explanations for why Dave Thomas found iron-rich spheres in a regular fire: "In sum, the three most likely sources for Mr. Thomasīs spheres are:

1. The spheres are already present as filler material in the paint.
2. Dave (accidentally?) made those spheres himself while he cut those beams via the friction from a cutting wheel, or a band-saw.
3. He partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before he lit the fire. Or he simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content."
As I said to to him personlly, he has just given three non-thermitic explanations of how the "signature" iron-rich spheres can be formed.
IOW, Truthers are finally acknowledging that they are Up Creek.
The Truther claim is that "iron-rich microspheres" are an exclusive indicator of thermite. If they can come from other sources, especially mere paint filler, how do they know that all of them don't come from other sources, and none from thermite?

Time to switch to "mini-nukes" or Judy Wood's Death Rays!
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2014, 05:22 PM   #154
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So, just so I get this right. You want to do a study to disprove a claim they have no evidence to support?

Why not just say you did and have them try to prove you didn't?
That is what my contention is. They have one population that they say is all thermite and it has "iron rich microspheres". Where is the same set of experiments done on stuff that is NOT thermite (e.g. primer paint on steel flakes) to show there is a significant difference from the paint? They have no evidence to prove thermite as a special cause for their observations, and they also did not perform the same experiments on Known Nanothermite to show that it performs the same way?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th April 2014, 05:51 PM   #155
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi DGM and LSSBB, As I've said before, while it is enough to sit on the null hypothesis position and wait for proof from them, in general I have chosen the hard route, which is actually investigate seriously the things they say. Plus, Ziggi could argue the null hypothesis as well, by simply claiming that iron oxide redux happens at at least 1250C and iron melts at 1510C, and that's that. It doesn't prove thermite, but the null hypothesis if you simply go by the texbook melting and reducing temps is that there were higher temps than can be obtained in a normal fire on 9/11. I asked Dave Thomas to test this, and he indeed found iron-rich spheres from regular primer paint on steel. We may not know why yet, but we have evidence that it did indeed happen. I want to know if the WikiLeaks guy made up a lie or if you really can reeducde iron oxide with a regular fire like he says. We'll have to figurfe out the "why" later, but if someone does the experiment we can at least investigate the "whether,"

And let's see, Beachnut offered to do it for $12K, and DGM's son for free. Hmm, which top choose?
__________________
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 26th April 2014, 08:06 PM   #156
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,072
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi DGM and LSSBB, As I've said before, while it is enough to sit on the null hypothesis position and wait for proof from them, in general I have chosen the hard route, which is actually investigate seriously the things they say. Plus, Ziggi could argue the null hypothesis as well, by simply claiming that iron oxide redux happens at at least 1250C and iron melts at 1510C, and that's that. It doesn't prove thermite, but the null hypothesis if you simply go by the texbook melting and reducing temps is that there were higher temps than can be obtained in a normal fire on 9/11. I asked Dave Thomas to test this, and he indeed found iron-rich spheres from regular primer paint on steel. We may not know why yet, but we have evidence that it did indeed happen. I want to know if the WikiLeaks guy made up a lie or if you really can reeducde iron oxide with a regular fire like he says. We'll have to figurfe out the "why" later, but if someone does the experiment we can at least investigate the "whether,"

And let's see, Beachnut offered to do it for $12K, and DGM's son for free. Hmm, which top choose?
Gage has the money, he can do it. Ziggy debunked himself, and he has no clue.

Studies have already reduced iron at temperatures from 220 to 740 C. Chemistry proves iron is reduced at less than iron melting point; 911 truth can't do chemistry.

Last edited by beachnut; 26th April 2014 at 08:08 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 26th April 2014, 09:31 PM   #157
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi DGM and LSSBB, As I've said before, while it is enough to sit on the null hypothesis position and wait for proof from them, in general I have chosen the hard route, which is actually investigate seriously the things they say. Plus, Ziggi could argue the null hypothesis as well, by simply claiming that iron oxide redux happens at at least 1250C and iron melts at 1510C, and that's that. It doesn't prove thermite, but the null hypothesis if you simply go by the texbook melting and reducing temps is that there were higher temps than can be obtained in a normal fire on 9/11. I asked Dave Thomas to test this, and he indeed found iron-rich spheres from regular primer paint on steel. We may not know why yet, but we have evidence that it did indeed happen. I want to know if the WikiLeaks guy made up a lie or if you really can reeducde iron oxide with a regular fire like he says. We'll have to figurfe out the "why" later, but if someone does the experiment we can at least investigate the "whether,"

And let's see, Beachnut offered to do it for $12K, and DGM's son for free. Hmm, which top choose?
No, Ziggy could not argue the Null Hypothesis.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 26th April 2014 at 09:32 PM.
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 26th April 2014, 10:22 PM   #158
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
And all the time Ziggy keeps throwing the red herring for someone to catch.
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 27th April 2014, 05:44 AM   #159
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi DGM and LSSBB, As I've said before, while it is enough to sit on the null hypothesis position and wait for proof from them, in general I have chosen the hard route, which is actually investigate seriously the things they say. Plus, Ziggi could argue the null hypothesis as well, by simply claiming that iron oxide redux happens at at least 1250C and iron melts at 1510C, and that's that. It doesn't prove thermite, but the null hypothesis if you simply go by the texbook melting and reducing temps is that there were higher temps than can be obtained in a normal fire on 9/11. I asked Dave Thomas to test this, and he indeed found iron-rich spheres from regular primer paint on steel. We may not know why yet, but we have evidence that it did indeed happen. I want to know if the WikiLeaks guy made up a lie or if you really can reeducde iron oxide with a regular fire like he says. We'll have to figurfe out the "why" later, but if someone does the experiment we can at least investigate the "whether,"

And let's see, Beachnut offered to do it for $12K, and DGM's son for free. Hmm, which top choose?
I claim the green goblin in my garage did it, do you want to investigate this claim also?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th April 2014, 06:47 AM   #160
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Gage has the money, he can do it. Ziggy debunked himself, and he has no clue.

Studies have already reduced iron at temperatures from 220 to 740 C. Chemistry proves iron is reduced at less than iron melting point; 911 truth can't do chemistry.
Hi Beachnut, I would love links to papers that address the specific phenomenon of iron-rich spheres (showing at least 2:1 ratio of iron to oxygen on the EDX by atomic count) being created by natural fires (or processes that can occur naturally like burning paint on steel). I haven't found any. Two years ago, Jim Millette said he wanted to study this phenomenon with the WTC dust because it has not yet been studied. That's why he wants to do actual research on it.

To my knowledge, there are no studies claiming goblins did it. But the textbook melting and iron oxide reducing temperatures are well known, and both are higher than normal office fires get. The only experiment I know of is Dave Thomas's. Are Dave and I and Jim Millette the only ones that have any curiosity at all about this?
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:52 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.