ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Niels Harrit , richard gage , steven jones

Reply
Old 19th October 2011, 10:58 AM   #41
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,213
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
emphasis is mine

I do not accept that it is a commonly held belief that only thermite can account for iron microspheres.



It is important to determine the chemical signature of the microspheres when associating their existence with the presence of thermite.

Here is a summarized and reduced for brevity exchange between Dr. Frank Greening and Dr. Steven Jones regarding the cause behind the iron microspheres.

So far I have little substantive research contradicting Dr. Steven Jones's argument.

But I will keep looking.

MM
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Here it is:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Suggestions and comments regarding improvements will be considered. Perhaps even a second edition?

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave

So MM, what do you think?
__________________
"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 19th October 2011, 11:45 AM   #42
Kevin.Silbstedt
Thinker
 
Kevin.Silbstedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 172
Originally Posted by Miragememories
I do not accept that it is a commonly held belief that only thermite can account for iron microspheres.
Really?:
Quote:
9: Vieles hängt von der Tatsache ab, dass Eisenreiche Sphäroide nach der Reaktion gefunden wurden sind, aber es gibt keine Diskussion über die graue Schicht oder über die Herkunft der Si-reichen Sphäroide. Eine Erhitzung verursacht viele Dinge und da es eine exotherme Reaktion ist, ist die Schlussfolgerungen über die Anwesenheit von Eisenreichen Sphäroiden (die, wie berichtet wurde, auch Sauerstoff enthalten) als Beweis für die Thermit-Reaktion nur dürftig.

ANTWORT: Eine wissenschaftliche Arbeit ist eine Reihe von experimentellen Daten und die beste Hypothese zur Erklärung der Beobachtungen.·Eisenreiche Sphäroide können nach einer Thermit-Reaktion beobachtet werden.·Eisenreiche Sphäroide sind aber noch nie außerhalb einer Thermit-Reaktion beobachtet worden.
to translate the bolded part: "Iron rich spheres can be observed after a thermite reaction. But iron rich spheres were never observed outside of a thermite reaction."

Well, I should be surprised about, what an obvious lie that is, but hey, this is the same man, that thinks, that because the WTC didn't exist in an argon atmosphere, he didn't have to ignite the chips under such an atmosphere to prove a thermite reaction.
Kevin.Silbstedt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 04:09 PM   #43
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Here it is:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Suggestions and comments regarding improvements will be considered. Perhaps even a second edition?

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave
Well done, Dave! I do have one suggestion: in your summary of possible sources of iron can you include anti-corrosion paints which include very fine iron?

Since the strongest candidate for the source of the Jones/Harrit chips is some kind of paint, I'd like to see a reference made to it.

cheers

AE
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 04:11 PM   #44
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Kevin.Silbstedt View Post
Really?:


to translate the bolded part: "Iron rich spheres can be observed after a thermite reaction. But iron rich spheres were never observed outside of a thermite reaction."

Well, I should be surprised about, what an obvious lie that is, but hey, this is the same man, that thinks, that because the WTC didn't exist in an argon atmosphere, he didn't have to ignite the chips under such an atmosphere to prove a thermite reaction.
Great gotcha quote. Will save that one... hehe.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 05:38 PM   #45
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Here it is:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Suggestions and comments regarding improvements will be considered. Perhaps even a second edition?

Thanks for all the clips & comments thus far!

Cheers, Dave
Thanks Dave, good work.

You showed that iron microspheres in the dust does not prove thermite was used, as the irrationals claim.
I wonder how many ways there are to not understand this.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

Last edited by BasqueArch; 19th October 2011 at 05:53 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2011, 08:53 PM   #46
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,677
What a brilliant video. Totally smashed the micro-sphere theory. Any chances of "proving" the red/gray chips are actually paint?
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 12:41 AM   #47
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Well done, Dave! I do have one suggestion: in your summary of possible sources of iron can you include anti-corrosion paints which include very fine iron?

Since the strongest candidate for the source of the Jones/Harrit chips is some kind of paint, I'd like to see a reference made to it.

cheers

AE
Great idea, thanks! I'll see if I can reassemble the film crew. They'll want double overtime, for sure.

Thanks also for the kind comments, cjnewson, basquearch, kevin, dgm!

Cheers, Dave
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 20th October 2011, 01:09 AM   #48
GlennB
In search of pi(e)
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pie City, Arcadia
Posts: 20,765
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Great idea, thanks! I'll see if I can reassemble the film crew. They'll want double overtime, for sure.

Thanks also for the kind comments, cjnewson, basquearch, kevin, dgm!

Cheers, Dave
Great video. And the credit at the end to your sponsor was especially naughty
__________________
"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 20th October 2011, 06:55 AM   #49
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


1.
You burned elemental steel. Yes, that's a way to create iron-rich microspheres, but I don't know that anyone has a theory about such spheres at GZ that would involve the burning of elemental iron. There is a reason why you picked steel wool: Because it is such a thin material. Which steel at the WTC would have been as fine yet close to elemental?

2.
Metal fires can get a lot hotter that organic combustibles, on account of their oxides not being gaseous. You did not determine the temperature of the flame when you burned your sample. How can you be so sure it's only like 700°C?

3.
At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide.

4.
At 7:47, you claim that the office fires got a lot hotter than a BIC lighter flame. I believe this is wrong. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flame
Gas flames can burn up to 1500°C (methane) - 1700°C (propane).
All kinds of numbers abound on teh interwebz about the actual temp of ordinary lighters. The english Wikipedia has storm lighters "in excess of 1100°C", the French goes even to 1200-1500°C.
Just look at your BIC flame: It appears blueish at its base, indicating an oxygen-rich, hot flame. That would be much hotter than most flames in room fires.


Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 07:04 AM   #50
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Well done, Dave! I do have one suggestion: in your summary of possible sources of iron can you include anti-corrosion paints which include very fine iron?

Since the strongest candidate for the source of the Jones/Harrit chips is some kind of paint, I'd like to see a reference made to it.

cheers

AE
In the interest of unassailability: Few, if any paints at all, contain (elemental) iron particles - these would oxidize anyway in a blink of an eye. They commonly contain iron oxide.

Indeed, our best candidate to explain the iron content Harrit's red-gray chip is a primer formulation specified to contain about 16% by weight iron oxide, adhering to oxidized steel flakes from the WTC floor joists.


Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
What a brilliant video. Totally smashed the micro-sphere theory. Any chances of "proving" the red/gray chips are actually paint?
Check out this thread:
Origin of the paint that was found as red-gray chips - any ideas?

I think we made a very strong case there that the (so far) most likely source of the chips is the primer flaked off of the WTC floor joists which were produced by LaClede Steel Company and painted with their standard primer.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 07:42 AM   #51
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


1.
You burned elemental steel. Yes, that's a way to create iron-rich microspheres, but I don't know that anyone has a theory about such spheres at GZ that would involve the burning of elemental iron. There is a reason why you picked steel wool: Because it is such a thin material. Which steel at the WTC would have been as fine yet close to elemental?

2.
Metal fires can get a lot hotter that organic combustibles, on account of their oxides not being gaseous. You did not determine the temperature of the flame when you burned your sample. How can you be so sure it's only like 700°C?

3.
At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide.

4.
At 7:47, you claim that the office fires got a lot hotter than a BIC lighter flame. I believe this is wrong. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flame
Gas flames can burn up to 1500°C (methane) - 1700°C (propane).
All kinds of numbers abound on teh interwebz about the actual temp of ordinary lighters. The english Wikipedia has storm lighters "in excess of 1100°C", the French goes even to 1200-1500°C.
Just look at your BIC flame: It appears blueish at its base, indicating an oxygen-rich, hot flame. That would be much hotter than most flames in room fires.


Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...

Very useful comments, Oystein - I will have to make a 2nd edition for sure. But perhaps not till after our band's fall gig is over. (Alumni band, we play 2x/year).
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 20th October 2011, 10:58 AM   #52
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein
"Nice video, Dave!

I have some criticism though:


1.
You burned elemental steel. Yes, that's a way to create iron-rich microspheres, but I don't know that anyone has a theory about such spheres at GZ that would involve the burning of elemental iron. There is a reason why you picked steel wool: Because it is such a thin material. Which steel at the WTC would have been as fine yet close to elemental?

2.
Metal fires can get a lot hotter that organic combustibles, on account of their oxides not being gaseous. You did not determine the temperature of the flame when you burned your sample. How can you be so sure it's only like 700°C?

3.
At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what? I see a big peak for O in the XEDS graph, and uhm didn't you burn - oxidize - that stuff? I am pretty sure you are not looking at pure (elemental) iron in those spheres but iron oxide.

4.
At 7:47, you claim that the office fires got a lot hotter than a BIC lighter flame. I believe this is wrong. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_flame
Gas flames can burn up to 1500°C (methane) - 1700°C (propane).
All kinds of numbers abound on teh interwebz about the actual temp of ordinary lighters. The english Wikipedia has storm lighters "in excess of 1100°C", the French goes even to 1200-1500°C.
Just look at your BIC flame: It appears blueish at its base, indicating an oxygen-rich, hot flame. That would be much hotter than most flames in room fires.


Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell..."
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Very useful comments, Oystein - I will have to make a 2nd edition for sure. But perhaps not till after our band's fall gig is over. (Alumni band, we play 2x/year).
Meanwhile the disinforming video can continue to misrepresent the truth.

Isn't that what 9/11 Truthers are always being accused of doing?

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 11:05 AM   #53
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Meanwhile the disinforming video can continue to misrepresent the truth.

Isn't that what 9/11 Truthers are always being accused of doing?

Gotta love the hypocrisy.

MM
Incorrect.

Video has been removed.
This is the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes. They find specks in the eyes of the unbelievers.

(Got to admit though that I am a bit surprised and disappointed that the video received four replies of praise, and half a dozend of you didn't find anything to criticize)

Last edited by Oystein; 20th October 2011 at 11:10 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 11:13 AM   #54
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Incorrect.

Video has been removed.
This is the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes. They find specks in the eyes of the unbelievers.

(Got to admit though that I am a bit surprised and disappointed that the video received four replies of praise, and half a dozend of you didn't find anything to criticize)
Well that is good news.

Nice to know Dave has some integrity.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th October 2011, 11:19 AM   #55
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 20,815
Edited by Tricky:  Edited for rule 12.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.

Last edited by Tricky; 20th October 2011 at 06:43 PM.
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 20th October 2011, 11:29 AM   #56
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Incorrect.

Video has been removed.
This is the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes. They find specks in the eyes of the unbelievers.

...
Gonna do a second version, but Band Camp will keep me busy for a few days at least. Trying to trim the fat, too - 8 minutes is kinda long.

I wish YouTube could let you update an existing video, but that's asking for too much, I guess.

Dave
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 20th October 2011, 11:49 AM   #57
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Gonna do a second version, but Band Camp will keep me busy for a few days at least. Trying to trim the fat, too - 8 minutes is kinda long.

I wish YouTube could let you update an existing video, but that's asking for too much, I guess.

Dave
It's not like you had already said that you would do a corrected version when MM called you a hypocrite.
Did he apologize?
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 05:11 AM   #58
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...
So you (and Sunstealer) are sure enough that those microspheres were formed from attached (probably micaceous) iron oxide layers? I asked Sunstealer, but he had not answered...

If this is the most probable explanation (microspheres in "Bentham chips" were created by some smelting process from oxidized steel), I could try to find some older steel constructions protected by red primer paint here in Prague. Perhaps, such red-gray chips (red primer layers on flakes of gray oxidized steel) are quite common...

As I wrote in another thread, I should be able to recognize easily if the binder in the primer is epoxy, using infrared spectroscopy.
Then (as in the case of my imitation of "Laclede" primer for WTC floor joists), I can heat those red-gray chips in the oven up to 700 degrees C under air and do some microscopy (looking for shiny microspheres).

This should be quite easy "research task", but any observation of shiny microspheres could serve as some partial proof of "paint hypothesis" only for us, debunkers. And we are basically convinced enough that "Bentham chips" were particles of paints. Therefore, a question arises if such an effort could pay off somehow...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 21st October 2011 at 05:13 AM.
Ivan Kminek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 05:34 AM   #59
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Hi Dave,

In a recent conversation with Richard Gage, he talked with me about your recent radio debate with him and said he didn't understand why you used steel wool as an example in your iron microspheres argument. Something about steel and iron being different. If I remember correctly, he also said that Steven Jones found the WTC iron microspheres to be different from other iron-rich spheres in that the percentage of iron in them was way higher than in other microsphere samples. Since I knew nothing about that Jones study the conversation didn't continue along that track.
__________________
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 21st October 2011, 05:49 AM   #60
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,445
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi Dave,

In a recent conversation with Richard Gage, he talked with me about your recent radio debate with him and said he didn't understand why you used steel wool as an example in your iron microspheres argument. Something about steel and iron being different. If I remember correctly, he also said that Steven Jones found the WTC iron microspheres to be different from other iron-rich spheres in that the percentage of iron in them was way higher than in other microsphere samples. Since I knew nothing about that Jones study the conversation didn't continue along that track.
Sounds about right. First its "iron rich spheres" which are paraded around as pure iron, then they become special iron spheres. Those goal posts must be really lightweight.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 21st October 2011, 06:54 AM   #61
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
It is important to determine the chemical signature of the microspheres when associating their existence with the presence of thermite.

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones in an exchange with Dr. Frank Greening
"The presence of metallic microspheres implies that these metals were once molten, so that surface tension pulled the droplets into a roughly spherical shape. Then the molten droplets solidified in air, preserving the information that they were once molten in the spherical shape as well as chemical information."
Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones in an exchange with Dr. Frank Greening
"The plot you provided is from burning COAL, not paper, plastics, wood etc. Or are you saying there was coal in the WTC? Where is the oxygen in the spectrum? This coal (your reference) was burned at high temperatures -- the caption refers to "high stoker temperature." This is a significant difference from the WTC fires -- or -- Are you claiming such high temps occurred in the WTC fires? Hot enough to produce iron-rich spheres? (Iron melts at 1538 C) The oxygen content is significant, yet the spectrum appears to be skewed, cut off at low X-ray energies... please explain -- how much Oxygen was present? Oxygen must be present in a spectrum to provide a match with spectra I have shown -- not the case in the one example you provided! All of the iron-aluminum spheres I have found in the WTC dust show abundant OXYGEN. Often O is the principal element in the spheres."
Originally Posted by Dr. Frank Greening in an exchange with Dr. Jones
"As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite."
Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones in an exchange with Dr. Frank Greening
"...you state: "Now this is indeed quite strange because Si is definitely NOT an ingredient of commercial thermite."

This statement is demonstrably incorrect, and indeed I demonstrated that Si is in fact a component of the sample of commercial thermite I tested -- both in the unreacted thermite sample (in with iron oxide chips) and in the spheres which formed from reacting the commercial thermite. This observation I made was and is important to the discussion. Experiments trump authoritative statements from you or anyone else."
I have yet to see this contradicted by any proofs presented here.

Certainly not Dave's steel wool.

It is quite clear that Dr. Jones accepts that microspheres can be created by other circumstances.

He also makes it quite clear that microspheres created by thermite have a distinct chemical signature (spectrum).

Good luck with the paint Ivan.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 06:57 AM   #62
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Nice video, Dave!
..................
Your conclusion is of course correct: Iron-rich spheres are not indicative of exotic. high-tech incendiaries and malicious intent, but can be produced under quite mundane conditions and are not as such proof of anything.

I still don't see though that we know real well where the iron-rich spheres that for example RJ Lee reported came from. Not from steel wool, that's for sure.

I suspect that such spheres are not normally formed from elemental iron, but from
a) combustion of chemical compounds that contain iron atoms (Myriad explained that this happens in ordinary wood fires, though I know no mass proportions)
b) Heating of very small particles of irom oxides, such as pigments, in orgamnic matrix (paint!)
c) Were present in the buildings to start with, e.g. in the flyash portion of lightweight concrete

If someone could show that the burning of flaked-off steel primer (the epoxy therein, for example) made the adhering iron oxide condense to spheres, that would be swell...
Oystein
Is there a source for the use of fly ash in the light weight concrete at WTC? It seems the aggregate used was expanded shale (see below link). Also, cement contains iron, as does the Vermiculite used in the fireproofing of the exterior columns. Both processed at high temperatures.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Pre and post construction welding of the steel would have also created microspheres in the welding vapor. Welding of exterior and interior plate columns, trusses , stiffeners, connections, gusset plates, spandrels, light gauge floor pans tack welded, would have produced iron spheres not detected in "normal office dust" but noticeable after the collapse.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

Last edited by BasqueArch; 21st October 2011 at 07:02 AM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 07:41 AM   #63
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by BasqueArch
"...Is there a source for the use of fly ash in the light weight concrete at WTC?..."
According to others, fly ash used in the WTC concrete should have been free of iron.

Originally Posted by JREFer Crazy Chainsaw
"Frank [Dr. Frank Greening] at that time I did not know that magnetite was removed from fly ash used in concrete by magnetic drum separation. Basically a big barrel filled with magnets that rolls over the fly ash, and picks out the magnetite so it can be sold. Basically the same technique used by Dr. Jones."
MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 08:11 AM   #64
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Pre and post construction welding of the steel would have also created microspheres in the welding vapor. Welding of exterior and interior plate columns, trusses , stiffeners, connections, gusset plates, spandrels, light gauge floor pans tack welded, would have produced iron spheres not detected in "normal office dust" but noticeable after the collapse.
Those are exactly the two points I've been making for years now:
  1. Fly ash doesn't have to be the only source of microspheres. There would be multiple, varied ones. I'd argue that construction welding (not post collapse cutting, but assembly welding) must be one of the minority sources of spheres. I'd even argue that diesel emissions would be as well, just due to the sheer number of years the building has been exposed to local traffic. The point is that we're concentrating on fly ash in concrete because there was so much concrete around, but the reality is that there must have been many different sources.
  2. The reason for the differences in the RJ Lee surveys would exactly be due to what BasqueArch is saying here: The spheres produced and/or deposited during construction would have been encased by the structure, but liberated by its collapse. All this presumption that the spheres were created during the collapse are exactly that: Presumptions. Even the RJ Lee report authors made it, but they did that because that was the state of the knowledge when they surveyed (at the time, the working theory was that the jet fuel did indeed directly cause the collapse. Subsequent study by NIST refuted that notion, but the NIST study didn't publish until after RJ Lee's report did). They certainly did not determine it.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 21st October 2011, 08:17 AM   #65
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
Those are exactly the two points I've been making for years now:
  1. Fly ash doesn't have to be the only source of microspheres. There would be multiple, varied ones. I'd argue that construction welding (not post collapse cutting, but assembly welding) must be one of the minority sources of spheres. I'd even argue that diesel emissions would be as well, just due to the sheer number of years the building has been exposed to local traffic. The point is that we're concentrating on fly ash in concrete because there was so much concrete around, but the reality is that there must have been many different sources.
  2. The reason for the differences in the RJ Lee surveys would exactly be due to what BasqueArch is saying here: The spheres produced and/or deposited during construction would have been encased by the structure, but liberated by its collapse. All this presumption that the spheres were created during the collapse are exactly that: Presumptions. Even the RJ Lee report authors made it, but they did that because that was the state of the knowledge when they surveyed (at the time, the working theory was that the jet fuel did indeed directly cause the collapse. Subsequent study by NIST refuted that notion, but the NIST study didn't publish until after RJ Lee's report did). They certainly did not determine it.
It is important to determine the chemical signature of the microspheres when associating their existence with the presence of thermite.

Not all microspheres are alike.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 08:23 AM   #66
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,213
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
It is important to determine the chemical signature of the microspheres when associating their existence with the presence of thermite.

I have yet to see this contradicted by any proofs presented here.

Certainly not Dave's steel wool.

It is quite clear that Dr. Jones accepts that microspheres can be created by other circumstances.

He also makes it quite clear that microspheres created by thermite have a distinct chemical signature (spectrum).

Good luck with the paint Ivan.

MM
So why would you support "therm*te as a top contender, considering no one has been able to propose a method for it to be in the buildings or destroy them?

Wouldn't you want to start a step one?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 21st October 2011 at 08:25 AM.
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 21st October 2011, 10:44 AM   #67
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
So why would you support "therm*te as a top contender, considering no one has been able to propose a method for it to be in the buildings or destroy them?

Wouldn't you want to start a step one?
It's interesting that the RJ Lee Group report found typical Background Dust in office buildings to already contain 0.04% iron spheres. Meaning thermate didn't put them there.

Class Particle Type Background Buildings TP-01
A Mineral Wool 1.05 13.70
A Glass Fragments 0.52 0.50
A Glass Fiber 0.23 1.27
A Perlite 0.26 0.45
A Vermiculite 0 2.36
A Ca/Si 0.35 5.11
A Fe Sphere 0.04 5.87
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.

Last edited by BasqueArch; 21st October 2011 at 10:50 AM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st October 2011, 11:50 AM   #68
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
According to others, fly ash used in the WTC concrete should have been free of iron.



MM
You failed to retract your lie about no study of the dust. Your opinions are based on lack of knowledge and sloppy research. 10 years of failure, no Pulitzer for you.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Iron is 5 to 6 percent of the earth's crust. What we have with 911 truth is ignorance and the need to make up delusional claims. Oops, there is Fe in the concrete. Why do you fail to do any research?
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 21st October 2011, 01:14 PM   #69
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You failed to retract your lie about no study of the dust. Your opinions are based on lack of knowledge and sloppy research. 10 years of failure, no Pulitzer for you.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Iron is 5 to 6 percent of the earth's crust. What we have with 911 truth is ignorance and the need to make up delusional claims. Oops, there is Fe in the concrete. Why do you fail to do any research?
Show me the lie and if you are correct, I will retract it.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2011, 01:53 AM   #70
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Ivan Kminek View Post
So you (and Sunstealer) are sure enough that those microspheres were formed from attached (probably micaceous) iron oxide layers? I asked Sunstealer, but he had not answered...
...
Not really sure, but if you look at the post-burning photos, fig. 20 and 23, you can't help but notice that there is still red material (apparently the hematite hasn't reacted), but where is the gray layer? Instead of gray layer, you now have gray spheres. Makes ya wonder.

I also don't even think they transformed by the heat from burning epoxy; instead, I think it happened when they applied external heat.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd October 2011, 01:59 AM   #71
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
Oystein
Is there a source for the use of fly ash in the light weight concrete at WTC? It seems the aggregate used was expanded shale (see below link). Also, cement contains iron, as does the Vermiculite used in the fireproofing of the exterior columns. Both processed at high temperatures.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/table_1.html

Pre and post construction welding of the steel would have also created microspheres in the welding vapor. Welding of exterior and interior plate columns, trusses , stiffeners, connections, gusset plates, spandrels, light gauge floor pans tack welded, would have produced iron spheres not detected in "normal office dust" but noticeable after the collapse.
Not that I am aware of now. We discussed this a while ago and learned that fly ash is, and already was in the early 70s, a common ingredient of light weight concrete, so that was a plausible candidate not rules out by anyone. I posted fly ash as an example for several, or many, possible sources.

Last edited by Oystein; 22nd October 2011 at 02:02 AM.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2011, 02:28 PM   #72
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein
"Not that I am aware of now. We discussed this a while ago and learned that fly ash is, and already was in the early 70s, a common ingredient of light weight concrete, so that was a plausible candidate not rules out by anyone. I posted fly ash as an example for several, or many, possible sources."
Not very plausible if the iron has been removed.

see;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=63

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd October 2011, 03:34 PM   #73
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Not very plausible if the iron has been removed.

see;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=63

MM
You are seriously pointing me to a statement made by an anonymous internet poster you identify as "JREFer Crazy Chainsaw", without even a link - while talking down on me because I quote metamars?

Hypocrisy much??
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th November 2011, 11:17 PM   #74
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 862
Mini Movie Version

It'll take a while before I'll be ready for another run at the scanning electron microscope lab (I want to burn some paint, test the chemical makeup of the steel wool before it's burnt, burn the wool with just paper -- not a hot IC lighter, etc.), so I made a very scaled-down mini version to show at the recent CSICON conference.

As a temporary placeholder in that great YouTube battleground in CyberSpace, do y'all think this is OK for now?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
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 11th November 2011, 12:28 AM   #75
zeusbheld
Critical Thinker
 
zeusbheld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 260
i think you need a 'button' at the end: make it clear that the claim that has been refuted is that thermite is the only possible source of iron-rich microspheres. it's clear enough from the clip at the beginning, but in a time-based medium like video a little reminder at the end can't hurt.
zeusbheld 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 11th November 2011, 03:13 AM   #76
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 14,637
Originally Posted by zeusbheld View Post
i think you need a 'button' at the end: make it clear that the claim that has been refuted is that thermite is the only possible source of iron-rich microspheres. it's clear enough from the clip at the beginning, but in a time-based medium like video a little reminder at the end can't hurt.
Yep.
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2011, 07:24 AM   #77
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"Not that I am aware of now. We discussed this a while ago and learned that fly ash is, and already was in the early 70s, a common ingredient of light weight concrete, so that was a plausible candidate not rules out by anyone. I posted fly ash as an example for several, or many, possible sources."
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
"Not very plausible if the iron has been removed.

see;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=63"
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"You are seriously pointing me to a statement made by an anonymous internet poster you identify as "JREFer Crazy Chainsaw", without even a link - while talking down on me because I quote metamars?

Hypocrisy much??"
Okay here is a quote with link;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=319
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw
"Fly ash was not used in the concrete..."
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=322
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw
"The concrete in the towers used a special aggregate, not fly ash....... "
I think you are ignoring a key difference here. Crazy Chainsaw is stating as fact something that should be freely available on the public record for confirmation.

BUT, your much prized metamars extract uses a portion of an alleged email exchange with Dr. Jones and cannot be verified for context or accuracy.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2012, 10:43 AM   #78
Steen Svanholm
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
oxidation vs. reduction

Hi guys

Recently, I burned some steel wool live on tv (local Danish network) to challenge the claims of Harrit et al. and Harrit responded by e-mail with what I shall translate here:

"The experiment done by Steen Svanholm is the opposite reaction of the thermite reaction. He burns iron powder that ignite when the temperature is is high enough. Burning is by definition a reaction with the oxygen in the air. The process that Svanholm demonstrates is:
iron + oxygen produces ironoxide

Within chemistry this type of reaction is called an oxidation.

The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round.

The thermite reaction is the exact opposite:

Ironoxide + aluminum produces aluminumoxide
Within chemistry this type of reaction is called a reduction.

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

Svanholm would have flunked the chemistry exam in high school if he had made a fool of himself in this manner."

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk
Steen Svanholm 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 20th January 2012, 12:10 PM   #79
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk
Hi Steen, welcome to the forums! The more you deal with 9/11 truthers, the more you will realize that they are not persuaded by logic, experiment, facts or much of anything else. I've stripped out the two blatantly false statements in Harrit's response. In his paper and subsequent data, Harrit has shown absolutely no elemental iron, and a lot of iron oxide.

As has been pointed out many, many, many times on this forum, iron oxide microspheres, and microspheres containing aluminum and silicon (as amorphous glassy material) are very common components of ash produced in normal fires. No magical thermite required. Roughly speaking, the formula for making ash is:

Anything + Hot (400 C or more) + Oxygen = Ash

No need to take it beyond that. Harrit suffers from a special kind of delusion that makes him impervious to all evidence that doesn't support his wacky ideas. Your experiment stands on its own merits, but it's not likely to convince anyone.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 20th January 2012, 02:42 PM   #80
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,764
Originally Posted by Steen Svanholm View Post
Hi guys

Recently, I burned some steel wool live on tv (local Danish network) to challenge the claims of Harrit et al. and Harrit responded by e-mail with what I shall translate here:

"The experiment done by Steen Svanholm is the opposite reaction of the thermite reaction. He burns iron powder that ignite when the temperature is is high enough. Burning is by definition a reaction with the oxygen in the air. The process that Svanholm demonstrates is:
iron + oxygen produces ironoxide

Within chemistry this type of reaction is called an oxidation.

The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round.

The thermite reaction is the exact opposite:

Ironoxide + aluminum produces aluminumoxide
Within chemistry this type of reaction is called a reduction.

The particles found in the dust from WTC contains elementary iron.

Many of them also contain aluminum and silicon. This is characteristic to iron-rich spheres produced in the thermite reaction.

Svanholm would have flunked the chemistry exam in high school if he had made a fool of himself in this manner."

What are you guys' opinion about his response?

Regards
Steen Svanholm
911facts.dk
The iron rich spheres Jones found are Iron Oxide mixed with cement dust, gypsum dust, burnt paper dust (carbon), and other dust from the WTC after they burned the dust sample they had. Means you win.

I looked up spectrum of iron oxide on gypsum, and it looks like Jones iron rich sphere. Iron rich to the 911 truth nuts is iron oxide, mixed with gypsum and cement dust.

Jones and his morons can add chemistry to their list of things they can't do, along with not figuring out 911. They burn their dust and come up with iron oxide, the opposite of what they need.
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
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

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