IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 911 conspiracy theory , thermite , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 11th April 2009, 09:39 AM   #1721
Fjolle
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Would this not mean that we were dealing with highly engineered nano-kaolin ?
You really need to understand that nano is only used to descripe stuff smaller than 1 micro meter. It doesnt have to be engineered, you dig it up from the ground I would guess that you could grind it to that size.
Fjolle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 09:45 AM   #1722
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
You do realize that all that needs to be done is show significant doubt on Jones findings, with possible outcomes that were more likely than his, to prove that his entire paper is a worthless piece of biased OUTCOME HUNTING, rather than a truly scientific analysis, right?

TAM
Let's be clear, here. Insofar as I have studied and understood sunstealer, he has not convinced me, anymore than Jones, et. al., have convinced me.

And do you really think that you are competent to pass judgement on whether sunstealers' "possible outcomes" are "more likely" than Jones'? Funny, but I don't have that impression. I also don't have that impression about myself, either. All the more reason to appeal to domain experts and - I expect - further investigations.

Kaolinite is used to extend TiO2, which makes skim milk whiter, and it's the active ingredient in kaopectate. I presume it's what makes it look so chalky. I have posted a picture of a squarish red grey chip here....
(Shown below)



and I am not at all confident of the 'kaolinite connection'. (BTW, why don't you show the picture to any 10 year old you find, and ask them if they see any shapes associated with the color red? Or purple-red, actually.)

Furthermore, the "rust" layer, as some people are suggesting, doesn't look rusty, at all.
metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 09:47 AM   #1723
bofors
Muse
 
bofors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
You do realize that all that needs to be done is show significant doubt on Jones findings, with possible outcomes that were more likely than his, to prove that his entire paper is a worthless piece of biased OUTCOME HUNTING, rather than a truly scientific analysis, right?

TAM
No, you have to:

(1) Propose a specific non-pyrotechnic material to be the source of the "red chips" and prove that this material existed in the WTC.

(2) Show that this specific non-pyrotechnic WTC material has exactly the same properties by light microscopy, SEM, XDS and DSC as the "red chips."

(3) Publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal and then wait for others to reproduce your work.

Last edited by bofors; 11th April 2009 at 09:51 AM.
bofors is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:00 AM   #1724
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I don't have the time to carefully go through everything. I've already devoted far more time, this past week, than I should have, given my situation. However, I do try to skim intelligently, and focus on whatever is interesting and comprehensible. Sorry if I'm not doing your posts justice.
No problem.

Some problems:

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
1) The pictures in wikipedia show a white-ish material. The description says that it can have a red, blue or brown tint from impurities. Why did you not remark on this difference?
You are comparing things on a macro scale. I'm aware of impurities etc because Kaolin is also found with CaO and sometimes CaCO3 (calcium carbonate), gypsum and other materials - I allude to that I think in the post.

SEM photos aren't in colour because there is no light involved (for those that don't know)


Originally Posted by metamars View Post
2) The kaolinite platelets are much more densely packed than the Jones platelets
That is because the SEM photo show Kaolinite only - Remember Jones photos are of a material that has a Carbon matrix (binder) and Fe2O3 in too so it's not going to show groupings tightly.

The whole point of that SEM photo on the right is to show the characteristics of Kaolin platelets. Therefore you can compare the characteristics with the platelets in Jones' photos. That is they are thin sheets, roughly hexagonal and of the same size and in Jones' photos you get the same type of bunching of the platelets (which I've called sandwiching).


Originally Posted by metamars View Post
3) While I can make out a few candidates for non-platelet particles in the kaolite, it doesn't look like nearly as many as in the Jones photographs
No there won't be because the SEM photo is of the Kaolinite is of Kaolinite only (or very little else). Jones' photos have the Fe2O3 particles (bright white) and the carbon matrix. They talk of no other particles and I can't see any in the highest magnification SEM photo. That indicates there aren't any additional particles. You'd expect aluminium in some powder form and this will show itself usually as a spherical form if it's been man made, with sizes as small as 1Ám.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
4) You don't tell us what the very few candidates for non-platelets particles in the kaolite are made of. (Though I note that wikipedia says, " In many parts of the world, it is colored pink-orange-red by iron oxide". So, it should not surprise anybody if these candidates turn out to be iron oxide.")
OK - the bright white particles in Figs 8 and 9 of Jones' paper are iron oxide particles in a rhomboidal crystal shape and are sub-micron in size. I did comment on them, but not in detail because this is correct and that's what they state in their paper. It's impossible to come to any other conclusion when you take the shape and the EDS data in Fig 6 into account. They don't comment on anything else except the Carbon matrix so even if we found something else we wouldn't know what it was unless there was a better look and some EDS data.

The resolution on Fig 8 is not the best, however, if you look very closely on Fig 8 b) - locate the brightest crystal in the middle at the bottom - just to the left and slightly above you can see other "clump" of what appear to be crystals but it's impossible to tell what they are. They aren't Fe2O3, they look like they are Kaolinite if you use the grey shading as a marker or they could be SiO2. Without additional data it's impossible to tell.


Originally Posted by metamars View Post
5) You say that they are "similar in size", but while I see a scale in the Jones pictures, I don't see one in the kaolite picture. So, how do you know that they are "similar in size"? You mentioned something earlier about a mesh. Please elaborate.
Yes certainly - there is a scale there, it's hard to see, it's in the middle bottom of the screen (sorry I'm familiar with these things so I know where to look.

You can find plenty of Kaolinite SEM photos on the net. Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.


Originally Posted by metamars View Post
6) The wikipedia page says

Thus, it doesn't sound like it's a major constituent of paint, but just an additive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since it's used to extend TiO2, and TiO2 is used to make paints more opaque and skim milk whiter, as far as I can tell, the same should apply to kaolinite. Consequently, why would anybody make a red paint composed mostly of white pigment? The only answer I can think of is that it's much cheaper than the red pigment, and (perhaps) since the kaolinite makes the paint opaque, if the red is 'red enough', this is the cheap and effective way to go.
Wiki has only limited information - if you do any search for Kaolin/Kaolinite and paint you'll get thousands of pages with Kaolin in paint. Usually it's used as a replacement for Talc. And the bold part is you answering your own question.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Would you please show us photomicrographs of a
1) red paint made with kaolinite?
2) red paint made with kaolinite, with whatever primer you are currently touting?
The red paint or "red layer" as Jones calls it could either be paint or primer so i just use the word paint.

I've not looked for any SEM photos like that and I haven't found any when picking up a couple of SEM photos for the rebuttal post.

There isn't any need to imho. The SEM photos and the EDS data correlate so well that getting what you ask for gilding the lilly. I can try, but if the evidence I've come up with so far doesn't convince you then I doubt anything else will.


Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Note that this link says that

were off when the break occurred. The SEM reveals telling information.
Yes, it does, but like any tool you have to be able to understand how, it works, hot to use, it what it's limitations are and also how to interpret or use what the image is showing and also what to look at. I've had access to a SEM since 1994 when doing a final year project on SiAlON (Silicon Nitride).

For example when looking at fracture surfaces, notably fatigue, it takes experience to know exactly what part of the fracture surface you look at in order to measure the length of striations which you can then use to determine crack propagation rates. One area right next to another will give you wildly different results. You have to be careful and not get sucked in with the size of what you are looking at.

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Also, would you please tell us what the resistance of a red paint chip, made with kaolinite, is? ( I suppose that we need a range of values. )
No idea, I've not even looked at that part yet, it's a very obscure test and I have no idea why it was carried out when XRD would be 1000 times more useful, it's completely irrelevant imho. The information that I have shown clearly supports evidence that the material is Kaolinite and therefore it's up to others to refute that with their own data.

Secondly what type of paint do you want it with? Do you want that to be just the paint or do you want a layer of iron oxide attached to it aswell? Maybe some steel parent material attached to the oxide ala the chip that went to France?

The resistance of the chip is a complete red herring because unless the value obtained can be compared with paint with an iron oxide layer then you are going to get a different value.

Paint ≠ Paint with oxide layer ≠ Paint with oxide layer and steel substrate.

I've done the best I can with those. Feel free to ask more, I'll try and get a full answer to you.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:05 AM   #1725
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Would this not mean that we were dealing with highly engineered nano-kaolin ?
No, Kaolin is a natural occurring mineral with a size range. It does go through some processing before being used but that will depend on the end use.

I'll use the same answer that i gave metamars with regard to sizing.

Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.

If you want a finer size then use a finer mesh. Although that gets problematic. You can use fluidised beds to separate material out as well.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:11 AM   #1726
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Fjolle View Post
You really need to understand that nano is only used to descripe stuff smaller than 1 micro meter. It doesnt have to be engineered, you dig it up from the ground I would guess that you could grind it to that size.
I have been trying to get some people to understand what nano actually is.

Nano-technology is typically anything that uses sizes of 100Ám or less.

You are using nano-technology right now when you view this. CPU chips have been under 100Ám for a good few years. I mentioned "fine wire gold bonds" earlier and they were 17.5Ám wide. Not only that but we were mounting them in resin, grinding them down to section through the foot then using a polish of 7 and then 1Ám to get a finish in order to examine them.

Everything I section, grind and polish ends up with a 1Ám (micron) polished finish. You can even get 0.5Ám alumina powder for use on some metals and allows (titanium for me). Nano is nothing special.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:14 AM   #1727
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Good stuff Sunstealer.... I posted your rebuttal at Above Top Secret. Only one to touch it was the in house engineer "Griff"... this was his response:

Originally Posted by Griff
No where did I see an MSDS sheet claiming a specific type of paint with the exact same physical qualities as these chips. If you can come up with one, I'll join the paint band wagon.

BTW, most steel coatings and paints I have been researching have a combustion point well over 500C when they are still wet and still have their most flammable chemicals in them.

Until you come up with a paint that ignites when dry at 480C (or whatever the specific temperature was) I have to say that this paint doesn't exist. Please prove me wrong.
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:16 AM   #1728
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
No, Kaolin is a natural occurring mineral with a size range. It does go through some processing before being used but that will depend on the end use.

I'll use the same answer that i gave metamars with regard to sizing.

Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.

If you want a finer size then use a finer mesh. Although that gets problematic. You can use fluidised beds to separate material out as well.
I'd say in a natural situation you would get some nano particles. But if most of the particles were at he nano scale then they were made to be that way. We are talking billionths of a meter particle size. All the sieving in the world will not achieve that result. This size particle can even enter the human cell. Therefore it has been engineered in a very high-tech way. Correct me if I'm wrong.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 11th April 2009 at 10:24 AM. Reason: spelling
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:24 AM   #1729
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Let's be clear, here. Insofar as I have studied and understood sunstealer, he has not convinced me, anymore than Jones, et. al., have convinced me.

And do you really think that you are competent to pass judgement on whether sunstealers' "possible outcomes" are "more likely" than Jones'? Funny, but I don't have that impression. I also don't have that impression about myself, either. All the more reason to appeal to domain experts and - I expect - further investigations.

Kaolinite is used to extend TiO2, which makes skim milk whiter, and it's the active ingredient in kaopectate. I presume it's what makes it look so chalky. I have posted a picture of a squarish red grey chip here....
(Shown below)

http://metamars.i8.com/red-grey.jpg

and I am not at all confident of the 'kaolinite connection'. (BTW, why don't you show the picture to any 10 year old you find, and ask them if they see any shapes associated with the color red? Or purple-red, actually.)

Furthermore, the "rust" layer, as some people are suggesting, doesn't look rusty, at all.
by more like outcomes, I was not specifically referring to Sunstealers. I am not qualified on the science, any more than anyone with an MD, BSc in Medical Science, and an Electronic Engineering Tech diploma (3 year) is.

I was referring to the fact, that given what we know (that the jetliners crashed into the towers, there were large fires, alot of damage, and certainly removal of some fireproofing, and buildings collapsed), there are many MORE LIKELY sources of his chips, such as paint, etc... then an exotic, never before used in a building demolition, compound such as thermite/thermate/nano...blah blah blah.

That was my point.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:26 AM   #1730
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Yes certainly - there is a scale there, it's hard to see, it's in the middle bottom of the screen (sorry I'm familiar with these things so I know where to look.

You can find plenty of Kaolinite SEM photos on the net. Sizes will range, because it's a natural. For manufacture in lots and lots of different materials, especially ceramics, (which is where most Kaolinite is used and of coarse Kaolin which is used in paper), then particle size distribution is critical. This is why the material is sieved. Different sieves have different sizes and this is where "mesh size" comes in.

The US has a different scale to us so I can never remember which way it goes but a mesh size will obviously only let particles of a smaller size than the mesh through. By doing this you can tailor the particle size distribution to get the best size for your product.

So if I want a size between 500mesh and 325mesh I'll sieve with those two. The 325 stops big bits and that gets thrown away. Then the sieved material goes into the 500mesh and that lets through all the really small bits and you chuck them. What you are left with is a distribution between 500 and 325mesh.

I'm still not sure exactly what size the platelets you are showing are. However, this link says

Quote:
Pure clay is composed of kaolinite crystals in particles called platelets. The average size of a clay platelet is less than two microns. A micron is 1/1000 of a millimeter.
Call the average size 1 micron. There's 1,000 nanometers in a micron. Thus, your platelets are 10x as wide as Dr. Jones' chips are thick, including the red and grey layer.

I'd say that's a problem, unless it's typical to process the kaolinite that ends up in paint such that the pieces end up 20x smaller. However, if that's the case, will they still end up "roughly hexagonal"?
metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:27 AM   #1731
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by bofors View Post
No, you have to:

(1) Propose a specific non-pyrotechnic material to be the source of the "red chips" and prove that this material existed in the WTC.

(2) Show that this specific non-pyrotechnic WTC material has exactly the same properties by light microscopy, SEM, XDS and DSC as the "red chips."

(3) Publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal and then wait for others to reproduce your work.
No, Jones has not proven what the chips are conclusively. Until he does so, all we have to do is show how bad his science is by pointing out possible alternatives that he did not, in his haste to bolster his own bias conclusions, exclude with any degree of certainty, if an attempt was even made.

No body without bias has reproduced Jones work, and more importantly, no one outside the truther community has come to the conclusions Jones had based on his data.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:30 AM   #1732
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by bofors View Post
No, you have to:

(1) Propose a specific non-pyrotechnic material to be the source of the "red chips" and prove that this material existed in the WTC.

(2) Show that this specific non-pyrotechnic WTC material has exactly the same properties by light microscopy, SEM, XDS and DSC as the "red chips."

(3) Publish your results in a peer-reviewed journal and then wait for others to reproduce your work.
Oh my gosh! Jones little stunt has drawn more truthers out of the woodwork!

Hey bofors, thanks for listing three things that Jones DID NOT DO! Fantastic.

Further, using Jones own data, baisc analysis has shown his conclusions to be absolutely false.

further, Jones flat out lied about sending his samples to independent labs.

My god, you truthers are willing to accept anything any truther says, no matter how fanciful. Slurp!

Last edited by The Big Dog; 11th April 2009 at 10:33 AM.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:32 AM   #1733
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,374
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Oh my gosh! Jones little stunt has drawn more truthers out of the woodwork!

Hey bofors, thanks for listing three things that Jones DID NOT DO! Fantastic.

Further, using Jones own data, baisc analysis has shown his conclusions to be absolutely false.

further, Jones flat out lied about sending his samples to independent labs.

My god, you truthers are willing to accepot anything any truther says, no matter how fanciful. Slurp!
Very true, and for that, you get a promotion...I'm going to round you up to 17!
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:45 AM   #1734
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
I'd say in a natural situation you would get some nano particles. But if most of the particles were at he nano scale then they were made to be that way. We are talking billionths of a meter particle size. All the sieving in the world will not achieve that result. This size particle can even enter the human cell. Therefore it has been engineered in a very high-tech way. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Have you ever used Talcum Powder Bill? You know the stuff you put on babies bottoms to keep them dry. Would you say that has "been engineered in a very high-tech way".

All you ever wanted to know about Kaolin (China Clay), but were too afraid to ask.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:51 AM   #1735
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Have you ever used Talcum Powder Bill? You know the stuff you put on babies bottoms to keep them dry. Would you say that has "been engineered in a very high-tech way".

All you ever wanted to know about Kaolin (China Clay), but were too afraid to ask.
Suppose talc WAS nano ? Your baby might be dry inside and outside. lol
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 11th April 2009 at 11:04 AM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:53 AM   #1736
bofors
Muse
 
bofors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
No, Jones has not proven what the chips are conclusively. Until he does so, all we have to do is show how bad his science is by pointing out possible alternatives that he did not, in his haste to bolster his own bias conclusions, exclude with any degree of certainty, if an attempt was even made.
You seem to be seriously confused about the scientific process in general and about materials science or analytical chemistry in particular.

Can you tell us exactly what academic experience you have to make your broad assertions?

Quote:
No body without bias has reproduced Jones work, and more importantly, no one outside the truther community has come to the conclusions Jones had based on his data.
Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.

Do you have any real scientific experience?

Have you published any peer-review papers?

Last edited by bofors; 11th April 2009 at 11:06 AM.
bofors is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 10:59 AM   #1737
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
I think it was Richard Feynman who famously said that the entire 24 volumes of the Encyclopoedia Brittannica could be written on the head of a pin at the nano scale. I can't imagine it myself.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 11th April 2009 at 11:01 AM. Reason: spelling
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:01 AM   #1738
bofors
Muse
 
bofors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post

The following photo-micrograph shows samples a-d (on the left) and Kaolinite (on the right).

What is the scale of the image on right? Where is scale bar?
bofors is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:07 AM   #1739
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Mr.Herbert View Post
Good stuff Sunstealer.... I posted your rebuttal at Above Top Secret. Only one to touch it was the in house engineer "Griff"... this was his response:
A possible argument against the lower temp - these paint chip are posited to have already been baked at higher temperatures (at some point in the fires/collapse/subsequent fires). They've been "charcoalized", to coin a term. So the fact that they now ignite at a lower temperature supports the position that they are paint chips after all.

Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Suppose talc WAS nano ? Your baby might be dry inside and outside. lol
OK, that's funny. I don't care who you are.

Last edited by boloboffin; 11th April 2009 at 11:08 AM.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:11 AM   #1740
bofors
Muse
 
bofors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I'm still not sure exactly what size the platelets you are showing are. However, this link says

Quote:
Call the average size 1 micron. There's 1,000 nanometers in a micron. Thus, your platelets are 10x as wide as Dr. Jones' chips are thick, including the red and grey layer.
I'd say that's a problem...
I see...

Yes, I say that's a problem too. Not only with the assertion of Kaolinite here but also with the person making it. Perhaps Sunstealer would like to clarify whether he thinks the length scales are important in morphological comparisons?


EDIT: It seems that Metamars made a mistake, the platelets are both on the order of one micron.

Last edited by bofors; 11th April 2009 at 11:24 AM.
bofors is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:11 AM   #1741
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I'm still not sure exactly what size the platelets you are showing are. However, this link says


Call the average size 1 micron. There's 1,000 nanometers in a micron. Thus, your platelets are 10x as wide as Dr. Jones' chips are thick, including the red and grey layer.
No - have a look at Fig 8 and 9. Look at the scale in the bottom right hand corner. It's 1Ám isn't it? 1Ám is 1 micron.

100nm is 0.1Ám. The white particles you can see are roughly that scale so they are really only just edging into the designation of <100nm and "nano". The gray platelets are >1Ám - see c) top left and they are at 90░ so will extend into the picture.

Depending on the source and on therefore the processing you are going to get different sizes however, the crystalline morphology does not change. That is what is important. How do we know that there aren't photos of larger platelets? The snapshot is tiny. What is important is to show that at that level there is a material that matches the characteristics of the material you have in the sample. If it was hundreds of orders of magnitude you may have a good point, but that's not the case.

Tell me - is this not Kaolinite? It's 10cm plus across! http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mi...kaolinite1.jpg - from here http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mi...nite.data.html

Originally Posted by metamars View Post
I'd say that's a problem, unless it's typical to process the kaolinite that ends up in paint such that the pieces end up 20x smaller. However, if that's the case, will they still end up "roughly hexagonal"?
Fractures will occur along crystal lines therefore you'll break things up into smaller and smaller subfractions of the whole. The crystallography does not change with size.

Secondly the SEM data backs the photo up to the hilt. Unless someone can come up with a different material that has the a similar shape, size and hexagonal profile with the same EDS data then the data stands. There is more than sufficient evidence to question the paper's conclusions.

I know you are trying to pick holes, but I'm unfazed - I have two characteristics; EDS data and SEM data, that match Kaolinite well enough with the material to require a full explanation. If it would make you happy I'll get some SEM photos of a range of Kaolins and sizes, it won't change the evidence or what that brings to the argument.

I do this sort of thing for a living, material characterization is all part of failure investigation work (Forensic metallurgy), I'm treating this just as I would do anyone who required a component examined to find out why it failed. If I thought thermite was present I'd do exactly the same and put up the evidence that lead me to that conclusion and I'd answer questions best I could.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:19 AM   #1742
bofors
Muse
 
bofors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
I don't care who you are.
I do care who you are, Joseph. I was looking at this last night and just shaking my head.

Quote:
I am currently a live voice writer, which means I produce captions for live television using voice recognition software. I used to be an working actor with the various "day jobs" such a profession requires. I also graduated from International Bible College (now Heritage Christian University) with a BA in Bible, and attended Harding Graduate School of Religion for two years pursuing a Masters in Christian Theology. I am now an agnostic on all matters religious.

http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-inde...=Joseph+Nobles
You think you are in any way qualified to comment on 9/11 research? Don't be absurd.
bofors is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:22 AM   #1743
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Perhaps I am not qualified to comment on 9/11 research. My comments should be held to the same standards of evidence and logic as any. But as has been demonstrated here again and again, people who seem to have these qualifications, the authors of this paper for the most part, have had their statements held against the evidence and shown to be completely inept.

I would far rather be a former actor and current captioner commenting on 9/11 research than an associate professor of chemistry who put his name at the front of the OP's paper. I have very little reputation to ruin.

Last edited by boloboffin; 11th April 2009 at 11:29 AM.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:24 AM   #1744
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by bofors View Post
You seem to be seriously confused about the scientific process in general and about materials science or analytical chemistry in particular.

Can you tell us exactly what academic experience you have to make your broad assertions?



Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.

Do you have any real scientific experience?

Have you published any peer-review papers?
Electronic Engineering Technology - 3 year diploma
BSC MEd Sci
MD
CFPC

I have been an "investigator" in several Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers. As a Physician, it works a little different.

oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me how I got it wrong.

The scientific process, with regards to analysis, is not to enter with an agenda, "hunting" for a particular material. You may "hypothesize" that a certain material is in fact "X", but you cannot declare such until you have eliminated, through careful process, all other likely possibilities. Jones et al have done the complete opposite.

They knew darn well that paint might be a possibility, as they mentioned it in their paper. But did they eliminate the type of paint, with its particular composition, that was used on the WTC beams? No. Is that proper "scientific process". Seems Jones et al, and perhaps you (given you are defending their paper) need a lesson in proper "scientific process".

but don't take my word for it. Dr, Greening, a chemist who I am sure has been peer reviewed, has substantial problems with the Jones paper...go ask him,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...t-t150-30.html

I don't need you, bofors, telling me about the scientific process, thank you very much.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:26 AM   #1745
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
No - have a look at Fig 8 and 9. Look at the scale in the bottom right hand corner. It's 1Ám isn't it? 1Ám is 1 micron.

100nm is 0.1Ám. The white particles you can see are roughly that scale so they are really only just edging into the designation of <100nm and "nano". The gray platelets are >1Ám - see c) top left and they are at 90░ so will extend into the picture.

Depending on the source and on therefore the processing you are going to get different sizes however, the crystalline morphology does not change. That is what is important. How do we know that there aren't photos of larger platelets? The snapshot is tiny. What is important is to show that at that level there is a material that matches the characteristics of the material you have in the sample. If it was hundreds of orders of magnitude you may have a good point, but that's not the case.

Tell me - is this not Kaolinite? It's 10cm plus across! http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mi...kaolinite1.jpg - from here http://www.uwm.edu/Course/422-100/Mi...nite.data.html

Fractures will occur along crystal lines therefore you'll break things up into smaller and smaller subfractions of the whole. The crystallography does not change with size.

Secondly the SEM data backs the photo up to the hilt. Unless someone can come up with a different material that has the a similar shape, size and hexagonal profile with the same EDS data then the data stands. There is more than sufficient evidence to question the paper's conclusions.

I know you are trying to pick holes, but I'm unfazed - I have two characteristics; EDS data and SEM data, that match Kaolinite well enough with the material to require a full explanation. If it would make you happy I'll get some SEM photos of a range of Kaolins and sizes, it won't change the evidence or what that brings to the argument.

I do this sort of thing for a living, material characterization is all part of failure investigation work (Forensic metallurgy), I'm treating this just as I would do anyone who required a component examined to find out why it failed. If I thought thermite was present I'd do exactly the same and put up the evidence that lead me to that conclusion and I'd answer questions best I could.
Would you expect the material to have a very energetic reaction when ignited if it WAS kaolin ? If not then it can't be kaolin surely ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:26 AM   #1746
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
No - have a look at Fig 8 and 9. Look at the scale in the bottom right hand corner. It's 1Ám isn't it? 1Ám is 1 micron.

100nm is 0.1Ám. The white particles you can see are roughly that scale so they are really only just edging into the designation of <100nm and "nano". The gray platelets are >1Ám - see c) top left and they are at 90░ so will extend into the picture.
Oops.

I confused my nano's with my microns.
metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:30 AM   #1747
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Oh my gosh! Jones little stunt has drawn more truthers out of the woodwork!
It wreaks of desperation doesn't it?
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:32 AM   #1748
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Electronic Engineering Technology - 3 year diploma
BSC MEd Sci
MD
CFPC

I have been an "investigator" in several Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers. As a Physician, it works a little different.

oh, and while you are at it, please explain to me how I got it wrong.

The scientific process, with regards to analysis, is not to enter with an agenda, "hunting" for a particular material. You may "hypothesize" that a certain material is in fact "X", but you cannot declare such until you have eliminated, through careful process, all other likely possibilities. Jones et al have done the complete opposite.

They knew darn well that paint might be a possibility, as they mentioned it in their paper. But did they eliminate the type of paint, with its particular composition, that was used on the WTC beams? No. Is that proper "scientific process". Seems Jones et al, and perhaps you (given you are defending their paper) need a lesson in proper "scientific process".

but don't take my word for it. Dr, Greening, a chemist who I am sure has been peer reviewed, has substantial problems with the Jones paper...go ask him,

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...t-t150-30.html

I don't need you, bofors, telling me about the scientific process, thank you very much.

TAM
You tell em'!!!!!!!

These guys are doing their very best, to find thermite. All other possible explenations are clearly thrown in the mental garbage can, or ignored.

Scientific method? I don't think so. This is politics masqurading as pseudo-science. Flat-Earthers and Creationists should take lessons from these guys.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:33 AM   #1749
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
It wreaks of desperation doesn't it?
Old Truthers only fade away. They will always be there and ready to come out of the woodwork at any time as you say.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:37 AM   #1750
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Originally Posted by bofors View Post
Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.

Do you have any real scientific experience?

Have you published any peer-review papers?

I would not say that the editor at Bentham is in the "truther community" they are more in the accept the check and deposit it community!

I love how Bofors comes crawling out of the woodwork after a year, and freaking assumes that this article has been peer reviewed just because your truther heros claimed it. What do you know about this "open" pay for publish internet web site, bofors?

You are aware that it has been comprehensively demonstrated on this site that it is NOT properly peer reviewed? Sad, you are a Truther Slurper.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:37 AM   #1751
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Yah kind of like termites...but more annoying.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:39 AM   #1752
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I am not going to disappear down the rabbit hole of ever increasing nitpicking and minutae that truthers pride themselves in. The SEM photo is there to show the structure and the EDS confirms it - or if you will the EDS data shows it's a nigh on match as good as you'll get and the photo confirms the EDS data.

If people don't think that Kaolin can have a particle size the same as that seen in Jones' paper then they need to read this.

Product Description
CapimÖ DG is a high brightness coating pigment naturally engineered to produce exceptional coated paper and board quality. Its high brightness and narrow particle size distribution produce optimum brightness and opacity whilst providing excellent print and sheet gloss in most applications.
Application
The excellent rheology of CapimÖ DG allows for high solids in high speed applications with improved runnability.
Shipping
CapimÖ DG is available in slurry and granulate forms. For more information regarding shipping or other product information please contact us.
Key Typical Properties
Property Typical Value
Brightness, ISO 89.0
Particle Size (% < 2 Á) 92
Moisture (spray dry) % 18.0

http://www.imerys-paper.com/products.../capim-dg.html

And no I'm not going to find out if paint in 1971 or 1671 used that particular size or any other nonsense.

You have to look at the data as a whole, not just pick at the edges. Look at the EDS data too. Compare it with all of the red layer EDS spectra in Jones' paper. See how there is evidence for Kaolinite, but also how it also shows the possibility that some of the samples were contaminated with gypsum just like Jones et al suggest.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:43 AM   #1753
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Old Truthers only fade away. They will always be there and ready to come out of the woodwork at any time as you say.
kinda like termites. Truther sleeper-cell termites. ready to awaken, pounce, and scurry away as soon as the exterminator arrives.

Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:43 AM   #1754
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Originally Posted by bofors View Post
Again, you are seriously confused about the basic scientific process. The scientists who reviewed the paper by Harrit el al. and the editor who selected them certainly are in the "truther community," and did come to same conclusions on the data. Otherwise, they would have not published the paper. That is how peer review works.
So peer review just means reviewed by other people that already have the same opinion as you and are in the "same opinion" club? It's as easy as that? So if i love chocolate and think it's the best food on earth, and some other chocolate lovers agree with me, then that's valid peer review and proves chocolate is the best food on earth despite those that don't agree?

Silly me, i always thought it was more involved than that. I always thought it meant reviews by other scientific experts in the relevant fields to double check it all and see if it stands up. For example other chemists would review a chemistry paper.

Gee who knew it was that simple...
The Platypus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:46 AM   #1755
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
So peer review just means reviewed by other people that already have the same opinion as you and are in the "same opinion" club? It's as easy as that? So if i love chocolate and think it's the best food on earth, and some other chocolate lovers agree with me, then that's valid peer review and proves chocolate is the best food on earth despite those that don't agree?

Silly me, i always thought it was more involved than that. I always thought it meant reviews by other scientific experts in the relevant fields to double check it all and see if it stands up. For example other chemists would review a chemistry paper.

Gee who knew it was that simple...
Well given the journal that Jones et al published in, don't be surprised if some of the "peers" who reviewed it were English Literature PhDs. See the thread on Bentham here....

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=110489

Gets interesting around page 7 or 8

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:48 AM   #1756
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Would you expect the material to have a very energetic reaction when ignited if it WAS kaolin ? If not then it can't be kaolin surely ?
No idea. And I also couldn't careless to find out. Why? you ask. Well because they EDS data shows one hell of a correlation between the two even to the extent of showing that there is gypsum in the spectra. Why bother with the nonsense when there is HARD, SOLID data being presented by me and Jones.

Custard powder undergoes an energetic reaction when ignited - do you want SEM and EDS data for that aswell?

Argue for or against the data please not ifs and whats.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 11th April 2009 at 11:55 AM.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:50 AM   #1757
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
I am not going to disappear down the rabbit hole of ever increasing nitpicking and minutae that truthers pride themselves in. The SEM photo is there to show the structure and the EDS confirms it - or if you will the EDS data shows it's a nigh on match as good as you'll get and the photo confirms the EDS data.

If people don't think that Kaolin can have a particle size the same as that seen in Jones' paper then they need to read this.

Product Description
Capim™ DG is a high brightness coating pigment naturally engineered to produce exceptional coated paper and board quality. Its high brightness and narrow particle size distribution produce optimum brightness and opacity whilst providing excellent print and sheet gloss in most applications.
Application
The excellent rheology of Capim™ DG allows for high solids in high speed applications with improved runnability.
Shipping
Capim™ DG is available in slurry and granulate forms. For more information regarding shipping or other product information please contact us.
Key Typical Properties
Property Typical Value
Brightness, ISO 89.0
Particle Size (% < 2 Á) 92
Moisture (spray dry) % 18.0

http://www.imerys-paper.com/products.../capim-dg.html

And no I'm not going to find out if paint in 1971 or 1671 used that particular size or any other nonsense.

You have to look at the data as a whole, not just pick at the edges. Look at the EDS data too. Compare it with all of the red layer EDS spectra in Jones' paper. See how there is evidence for Kaolinite, but also how it also shows the possibility that some of the samples were contaminated with gypsum just like Jones et al suggest.
I think it's fair to say that nano technology did not exist in 1971 . So the paint that was used was not a nano product. The substance that professor Jones nd his team of eight scientists have just brought to light IS a nano compound and is very likely to be thermite as he claims. Their conclusions are being confirmed by other scientists reproducing their results sucessfully.
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 11th April 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:52 AM   #1758
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
So peer review just means reviewed by other people that already have the same opinion as you and are in the "same opinion" club? It's as easy as that? So if i love chocolate and think it's the best food on earth, and some other chocolate lovers agree with me, then that's valid peer review and proves chocolate is the best food on earth despite those that don't agree?

Silly me, i always thought it was more involved than that. I always thought it meant reviews by other scientific experts in the relevant fields to double check it all and see if it stands up. For example other chemists would review a chemistry paper.

Gee who knew it was that simple...
You nailed it.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:54 AM   #1759
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,613
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
So peer review just means reviewed by other people that already have the same opinion as you and are in the "same opinion" club? It's as easy as that? So if i love chocolate and think it's the best food on earth, and some other chocolate lovers agree with me, then that's valid peer review and proves chocolate is the best food on earth despite those that don't agree?

Silly me, i always thought it was more involved than that. I always thought it meant reviews by other scientific experts in the relevant fields to double check it all and see if it stands up. For example other chemists would review a chemistry paper.

Gee who knew it was that simple...
Gee - is that how it works.

I thought the peers would include chocolate haters who would try to find holes in your arguments for chocolate?

..seems I must have misunderstood.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th April 2009, 11:54 AM   #1760
bofors
Muse
 
bofors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 579
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
No idea. And I also couldn't careless to find out. Why you ask? Well because they EDS data shows one hell of a correlation between the two even to the extent of showing that there is gypsum in the spectra. Why bother with the nonsense when there is HARD, SOLID data being presented by me and Jones.

Custard powder undergoes an energetic reaction when ignited - do you want SEM and EDS data for that aswell?

Argue for or against the data please not ifs and whats.
You do not care if your Kaolinite / Tnemec (or whatever) hypothesis is true? Is that what you are saying?

If not who is going to produce some Kaolinite / Tnemec (or whatever) "red chips" and perform the DSC experiments on them required? Popular Mechanics?

Last edited by bofors; 11th April 2009 at 11:58 AM.
bofors is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 05:58 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.