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 9/11 conspiracy theories , Bentham journals , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , steven jones , thermite

Reply
Old 10th September 2012, 01:51 PM   #1041
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,855
Other reasons Harrit –Jones chips are not (sol-gel) nano- thermite, and cannot melt steel.
1) Nano-thermite sol-gel Fe2O3/Al burns expelling sparks. Basile claimed nano-thermite (sol-gel) chip burn experiment does not, just a flame, like Kminek’s burn test of paint.



Sol-gel nano-Fe2O3/Al burning
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...2230930100477X

Basile’s chip burn
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


2) There’s not enough energy even if the chips were nano-thermite, in the thin Harrit chips to warm the steel more than a few degrees, let alone melt ¼” thick steel. This has been shown elsewhere by others.
__________________
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.
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 10th September 2012, 02:46 PM   #1042
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
ProfJones again at 911Blogger - now he is dodging:

Originally Posted by ProfJones
Agreement reached on a collaboration to study WTC dust

in well-equipped laboratories. The "interested scientist" in the above blog and I will collaborate on further studies, particularly of the red/gray chips, and we have agreed on doing XRD (X-ray diffraction) and DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimeter) studies in particular. It appears that at least two other scientists will be involved.

I'm excited about this! as I am about on-going alternative-energy studies. Looks like I will be pursuing both lines of research for the near future.

I will write up a more formal blog to announce this collaboration soon.

Remo -- I would rather do experiments such as this, and get solid empirical answers, rather than engaging in "endless" debates at Jref or truthaction.

This, after he claimed
"I would like to see JohnA and Snowcrash and a few others at truthaction respond fairly and scientifically to my letter above"
and
"Let me know what the debunkers say to this letter (above), would you? ... A few years back, I tried to get onto jref so that I could speak there -- and they refused to allow me to join!"



He is avoiding scientific and critical comments like the plague. remo, do you notice how Mr Jones, just like you, refused to even acknowledge criticism?
Do you notice how no comment by ME has been allowed in that thread?

Do you notice how the Twoof Movement practices censorship and self-censorship?
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 September 2012, 03:02 PM   #1043
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
ProfJones again at 911Blogger - now he is dodging:




This, after he claimed
"I would like to see JohnA and Snowcrash and a few others at truthaction respond fairly and scientifically to my letter above"
and
"Let me know what the debunkers say to this letter (above), would you? ... A few years back, I tried to get onto jref so that I could speak there -- and they refused to allow me to join!"



He is avoiding scientific and critical comments like the plague. remo, do you notice how Mr Jones, just like you, refused to even acknowledge criticism?
Do you notice how no comment by ME has been allowed in that thread?

Do you notice how the Twoof Movement practices censorship and self-censorship?
Considering the kinds of things that have already been said about him, I can't say I blame Jones for not wanting to get into endless debates here.

This is an interesting development and probably deserves its own thread.
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 September 2012, 03:06 PM   #1044
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,061
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post

This is an interesting development and probably deserves its own thread.
How so? This is the perfect thread for this. Are we not talking about the same subject?

Maybe you think it deserves a little more fanfare?
__________________
"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; 10th September 2012 at 03:09 PM.
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 10th September 2012, 04:00 PM   #1045
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,580
Originally Posted by RedIbis View Post
Considering the kinds of things that have already been said about him, I can't say I blame Jones for not wanting to get into endless debates here.
Yeah, why should he put his ideas to the test when he can just preach to the choir?

A chorus of Amens to every pronouncement is good for the ol' ego, eh?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th September 2012, 04:21 PM   #1046
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I wish to give a brief apology - I quoted Jones's statements as "Dr Jones" when I should have quoted "Prof Jones". I hope he and others understand that this was an oversight on my part and not intended. My apologies to Professor Jones.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th September 2012, 04:37 PM   #1047
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
A fellow named zica comments:

Originally Posted by zica
Dr. Jones,

I'm wondering if you could at least take a look at the URL remo has provided (http://www.internationalskeptics.com...140017&page=26) and give a response here about some of the arguments they are presenting. I'm not asking you to spend all day on this. I'm sure it can be a real time sucker and you are a busy man. They have accused you of lying about a few things and some of them should be fairly easy to clear up.
More importantly, zica, we have provided facts and scientific reasoning that needs to be considered by those who still cling to the (false) belief that any of the red gray chips are "thermitic".

In particular, ProfJones hasn't realized, and urgently needs to realize
  1. that there were more steel primers used on WTC twin tower steel than Tnemec
  2. that another primer, the LaClede standard primer used on the floor joists, accounts PEFFECTLY not only for any and all data on chips a-d in the Bentham paper, but additionally for the Strontium and Chromium signals that Dr. Farrer and Dr. Harrit have said they found in the same chips
  3. that Dr. Millette did indeed identify a crystal structure for Al-silicate (specifically: kaolin) in red-gray chips that are a match for chips a-d in the Harrit paper
  4. that his own current blog post at 911Blogger, where he suspects that Millette looked at different kinds of chips, implies that indeed there were several different kinds of red-gray chips in WTC dust that were seperable by magnet and have the same XEDS and SEM appearance as chips a-d
  5. that the Bentham paper provides clear proof that Harrit, Jones, Farrer e.al. themselves looked at different kinds of chips
  6. that no evidence has been presented that the MEK-soaked chip reported on in the Bentham paper is the same material as chips a-d. Quite the contrary: All evidence provided by Harrit e.al. themselves suggests it is a different material
  7. that this MEK-soaked chip is very likely Tnemec primer, as its XEDS spectrum is almost identical to the XEDS spectrum of Tnemec from WTC perimeter columns as presented by ProfJones himself
  8. that Dr. Farrer didn't present any characterisation of the chips he destroyed in the DSC experiment, so it is unknown which kind or kinds of the various different kinds of red-gray chips he burned there; the DSC experiment is thus not reproducible
  9. that the DSC is not a competent test to find out the identity of an unknown material
  10. that competent tests include FTIR and TEM-SAED
  11. that Dr. Millette has done these competent tests and has thus shown there is no elemental Al in the chips
  12. that ProfJones's team must publish their own FTIR- and TEM-data before they do any further tests - their holding back of this crucial data must be viewed with highest suspicion! ProfJones, is there anything your team is hiding??

Originally Posted by zica
...
Hat's off to remo for at least attempting to have a discussion with them.
...
As this thread bears witness, remo is not at all trying to "have a discussion with" us. In fact, the contrary is true: remo is studiously avoiding any discussion with us!

He has copied and pasted texts from elsewhere to the JREF forum, for example this useless patent about magnetosputtered layers of whatever, or the blog post by ProfJones. We have commented on the merits of remo's posts - remo has never even in the slightest way responded to the substance of the criticism - he is not discussing his own contributions at all!


zica, if you think I am wrong, if you think remo was "attempting to have a discussion with" us, then I am sure you can link and point to a post where he does that, perhaps along with a brief explanation of why you consider any of remo's posts here to be a discussion of the subject matter - thanks!


zica, one other thing:
Do YOU acknowledge that
  1. ProfJones is not responding to any criticism
  2. nor is any of his peers
  3. nor is remo
  4. 911Blogger totally censors opposing views on the subject matter - or do you see any post loke mine on 911Blogger? I sure posted a couple or three, but none were approved.
zica, remo, do you approve of, or protest against, the censorship that's daily exercised at 911Blogger?
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 12th September 2012, 07:06 AM   #1048
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
I have just composed a blog post that responds to Jones's recent article at 911Blogger_

Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips

I'd appreciate some proof reading, comments and corrections!

By the way: ProfJones, Dr. Farrer, remo and zica are of course invited to respond directly to my blog! I believe/hope comments can be written anonymously without any log-in. I wish I could comment on Dr. Farrer's valuable remarks over at 911Blogger, but I get censored there. Is really none of you in scientific reason and criticism? Why do more experiments when you have a back-log of old experiments with unpublished results?

Dr. Jones, Dr. Farrer: When will you publish the full results of the TEM- and FTIR experiments you did on those chips years ago?
remo, zica: Would you please urge Dr. Farrer and Dr. Jones over at 911Blogger to publish these TEM- and FTIR results before new experiments are done? It should be obvious that more results could be of great help to the unknown scientist, or any scientist, willing to do a replication!




(remo, by the way: You are now complaining at 911Blogger that we would not discuss NIST with you. That is FALSE. We would, but only in the appropriate threads. Since you posted here, in a thread on red-gray chips, we would be happy to debate you on that, but not on NIST. I hope you will correct the wrong impression you gave over there, and also recognize that 911Blogger exercises censorship while JREF does not)

Last edited by Oystein; 12th September 2012 at 07:11 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 12th September 2012, 08:04 AM   #1049
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
I reported Remo's off-topic post as being off-topic that's why it was pulled. He seems to not understand that threads have topics and that he is free to post material in a topic that is relevant.

Incidentally just to add some additional information. Jones talks about Farrer having problems with analysis using TEM.

Quote:
He did not see a pattern demonstrating that aluminum was in a form he recognized by this method, which surprised us.
Kaolin is not considered to be a totally crystalline structure. In fact it's usually described as being amorphous with long range ordering. Degrees of crystallinity range across samples.

Again kaolin fits in with the material they are looking at.
Sunstealer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2012, 03:18 PM   #1050
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have just composed a blog post that responds to Jones's recent article at 911Blogger_

Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips

I'd appreciate some proof reading, comments and corrections!
Solid. I'll just mention, in passing, that finding titanium is no surprise, as titanium dioxide is a common paint ingredient.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th September 2012, 04:41 PM   #1051
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Solid. I'll just mention, in passing, that finding titanium is no surprise, as titanium dioxide is a common paint ingredient.
It is also the most common contamination of kaolin clay.
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 12th September 2012, 10:05 PM   #1052
remo
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 90
the MIX

To be clear.
#1048 "You are now complaining at 911Blogger that we would not discuss NIST with you. That is FALSE. We would, but only in the appropriate threads. Since you posted here, in a thread on red-gray chips, we would be happy to debate you on that, but not on NIST. I hope you will correct the wrong impression you gave over there, and also recognize that 911Blogger exercises censorship while JREF does not"

Please refer #1018 "Dust was created in large amounts both from the very extensive fires (it's called "ashes" then) and from the >100 tons of TNT equivalent of potential energy that gravity converted to destruction.
What energy source do you have in mind that was responsible for the findings you have in mind"

To which I responded : #1040

To suggest the apocalyptic energies witnessed that day; the energy required to pulverize that amount of concrete into finest powder to make it FLOW in churning HOT volcanic ash storms through the streets of Manhattan: to hypothesise that the firepower fragmenting and ejecting so much material in such a short amount of time at such speed to such a degree and in such symmetry was gravity .......that any connection could be made between the sudden FREE FALL of these complex steel framed structures; their complete rapid and total explosive disintegration ....and 'normal office fires' initiating 'gravitational collapse', beggars - outrages the conscious will. That pearl don't fit the oyster mister. Buildings do not ACT like this by just "falling". "Falling" buildings fall, over, here or there; there are clips of buildings dropped straight down two floors or three by demolition with follow-up destruct sequences failing, and the entire building crunches some, leans maybe, sometimes FALLS OVER, but, does NOT loose shape..HOLDS its shape. does not disintegrate into pyroclastic flow. Does not Speed UP through structure of greatest resistance. Does not explode itself into a neat little pile - the walls folded over its pile so neat and tidy observers just naturally, intuitively, said 'controlled demolition".

Somewhere among the pejoratives above, it was asserted "100 tons of TNT equivalent of potential energy that gravity converted to destruction". This is misrepresentation of science and observable building behavior. Of what we SAW, and runs counter to the eyewitness and forensic evidence of violent demolition. The question 'what 'converted' the 'gravity' to destruction is the one we are asking. Suddenly? What was added to the quietly standing smoldering mix to convert static and rigid building structure to rampant moving explosive energy racing itself down the flanks of this apocalypt to utter destruction?

More properly, you would say, gravity 'assisted' the continuous explosive/incendiary ignitions in chain-reaction. 100 ton TNT is a stab at an energetic supply equivalent IN EXCESS of those energies INHERENT in the buildings as they sat, burning; but EXCESS was required to DO what we saw DONE. It could have been more. could have been less. Depends who you read. Who will ever know? What the substances WERE is the question this little witch hunt is on [those skilled in the arts]. What was used to do the [inside] job to explode the towers all the way down at increasing speeds into fragments and DUST leaving molten pools is this particular question. Professors Jones/Harrit found thermitic material, you deny it. We will see . Sulfur of course was found [USGS open-file 01-0429, NYT etc] anomalous to normal 'collapse dust' as were the 6% iron microspheres by mass you say, being 'unusual' by Lee, but, which like the molten iron 'running down the channel rails like we was [sic] in a foundry", was left a dead question, just as EVERY reference to explosive events before during and after aircraft strike were killed in later editions of the narrative.
The study of metal fragments certainly found example of temperatures way in excess of 'normal office furnishings fires' .

Steel Framed High Rises DO NOT collapse into fragments and pulverized concrete due to 'normal office furnishings fires' and gravity. Thats a story for your pet GOAT produced by illusioNIST. con. packaged by professional liars, and deviant agnotologists.
To accept it?...with all the evidence otherwise??..that is another profession entirely."

- end of post -

Which was 'pulled' for being 'off-topic'. [#1049 I reported Remo's off-topic post as being off-topic that's why it was pulled. He seems to not understand that threads have topics and that he is free to post material in a topic that is relevant.]

Whereas, it was clearly addressing the allowed post#1018.

It could be fairly concluded from that action an unwillingness to argue additional energy required for FREE FALL of a complex steel framed high rise, the creatioNIST report 'fire induced sequential building collapse/normal office furnishings fires', and the practiced censorship of it.
remo 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 12th September 2012, 10:35 PM   #1053
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,729
Originally Posted by remo View Post
To be clear. ...

Jones/Harrit found thermitic material, ...

Steel Framed High Rises DO NOT collapse into fragments and pulverized concrete due to 'normal office furnishings fires' and gravity. Thats a story for your pet GOAT produced by illusioNIST. con. packaged by professional liars, and deviant agnotologists.
To accept it?...with all the evidence otherwise??..that is another profession entirely."

...
It could be fairly concluded from that action an unwillingness to argue additional energy required for FREE FALL of a complex steel framed high rise, the creatioNIST report 'fire induced sequential building collapse/normal office furnishings fires', and the practiced censorship of it.
??? Most your post is off topic, already in AAH, and poppycock based on lack of knowledge of fire, engineering, physics, math, and other topics. Moving off topic stuff is not censorship, it is the inability to start your own thread or move your nonsense to the correct thread.

Jones lied, no thermite was found. If he is not telling lies, he is incompetent, has problems with reality. Do you understand the paper? You should be skeptical of the thermite claims when they had to pay, pay money to publish their paper. No journal would publish their failed paper, they had to pay. 11 years, the collapse can be explain by experts and physics. Got Physics? If not get a reality based expert to help you with the numbers.

Pulitzer Prize winning claims, had to be posted in a vanity journal. If Jones was right, Journals would be publishing Jones stuff; but it is fantasy, nonsense. No thermite, no Pulitzer. Jones remains a conspiracy nut.


911 Blogger's censorship, not letting people post is a fact. This is off topic, will not help Jones. People are not allowed to freely post on topic at 911 Blogger - the truth is not allowed.

Why were you fooled by Jones paper? Which part made you think thermite was found?

Last edited by beachnut; 12th September 2012 at 10:41 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2012, 03:37 AM   #1054
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by remo View Post
...
Whereas, it was clearly addressing the allowed post#1018.
...
What a sad, little, pathetic excuse to run away from the topic at hand and ignore the arse-slapping you have recieved on the topic! Do truthers know no shame at all???


8 paragraphs of my post #1018 discuss studies of WTC dust and what materials might be in it. 1 paragraph picks up your (only slightly off-topic insertion) of kinetic energy. This 1 paragraph actually intended to ask you with which chemicals allegedly found in the dust you want to replace, or add to, the kinetic energy.


You chose not to respond to any of the 8 paragraphs on WTC dust. You missed the direction at which the 1 other paragraph went and took it entirely off-topic in a long post that failed to mention any dust study at all.




Now remo,
Do you assert the right to post off-topic?
Will you ever address ANY of the many questions asked of you that are on-topic?
Will you, or will you not, discuss WTC dust in this thread?
Will you, or will you not, respond to the cristicism of that silly idea that you brought here that this patent would explain features in WTC dust?

Please indicate if you are willing and able to discuss in this threads topics that fall within the thread topic, and abstain from derailing fully into off-topic territory!
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 September 2012, 07:03 AM   #1055
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Steven Jones responds to JREF:

Further comments and questions for JREFer's

So here is my reply, ProfJones

Originally Posted by ProfJones
So Zica, I did spend some time going through Jref comments; some are scientific and apropos and worth reading.
What good is it to announce you read scientific and worthy arguments, when you totally, absolutely refuse to address or even acknowledge a single one of them? ProfJones, You don't actually expect us to answer your new questions before you haven't addressed ours - or do you?

I'll anyway expand the courtesy and respond to the couple of points you have addressed at us - before repeating some of the issues you have so far failed to address or even acknowledge. I hope you will return the courtesy. Finally, I will address some pf the other issues you talk about in that latest comment of yours, particularly the issue of XRD tests you have already commissioned.


Originally Posted by ProfJones
1. Why do iron-rich spheres appear in the residue of the red/gray chips following ignition in the DSC, ...
We don't know why iron-rich spheres apear in the residue, and you don't know either. The main reason for this is that your team failed to give the readers of your paper any clue which kind, or kinds, of red-gray chips Dr. Farrer wasted in the DSC experiment.
  • Was it the kind of chips of which chips a-d are (Fig 2-11) an example of - those with kaolin as the Al-bearing pigment, that are an almost picture-perfect match for LaClede Steel primer?
  • Or was it the kind of chip represented by the MEK-soaked chip (Fig. 12-18) that so very much differes from chips a-d, but whose elemental spectrum is a surprisingly good match for the spectrum of Tnemec primer, as you, ProfJones, have presented a while ago in Sydney?
  • Or was it perhaps the multilayered kind of red-gray chip shown in Fig 31, that contains significant Pb, a feature entirely absent from the two other kinds of chips I just mentioned?
  • Or was it perhaps the kind of chips that you suspect Millette was looking at and which, as you imply, can also be found in WTC dust and extracted by a magnet - the kind that contains a few TiO2 pigments (of which your Fig. 25 might show some post-DSC residue of - that residue that Farrer found in the DSC contains the very Titanium signal that you claim was absent from the allegedly "thermitic" chips!)
  • Or was it chips of any of the various other kinds that may be found, perhaps rich in copper or barium, as your paper suggests on page 28?
You see, ProfJones, without a proper characterization of the materials that Dr. Farrer put in the DSC, it is impossible to interprete the results competently.
Originally Posted by ProfJones
...ignition in the DSC, which also provides a sharply-peaked heat trace?
First of all, ProfJones, I think the first a leading question - you imply that the heat traces are sharply-peaked, I say they are not, or not all of them.

Take a look at all four traces, plus the trace by Tillotson and Gash that you reference:



Tillotson and Gash's curve peaks at ca. 5 Watts/gram. Your specimens from the Intermont and White dust samples both exceed that value of 5 Watts/gram over a range from ca. 380°C to 460°C - at a heating rate of 10°C/min, this means these two chips were smoldering above the peak power of Tillotson's nanothermite for an amazing 8 minutes! Of course, the base of these peaks is even much wider than that. In short: That was a very slow reaction indeed! Tillotson's graph stayed above 2 Watts/gram for a little under 6 minutes, which is what I would consider its "peak" during which the bulk of the thermite reaction happened. Of your 4 samples, only MacKinlay 1 has a narrower peak, the three others peak above 2 Watts/gram much much longer. So I would ask you, ProfJones: Why are the two peaks for the Intermont and the White sample so very wide compared to actual nanothermite?

Originally Posted by ProfJones
Do these results not imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning paint in air? That is -- where do the iron-rich spheres ( in the ignition residue) come from?
No - you have it all backwards.

There is nothing unusual about the power, the peak width or the energy release of your four specimen of unknown provenience, considering that they all probably consist mostly (70%-80% by weight, typically) of some unknown organic matrix that burns under air - as your paper freely admits on page 28 of your paper.

Your results, ProfJones, actually "imply SOME type of highly exothermic reaction, beyond that which can be reached by burning thermite".

All the XEDS spectra that you have produced on the red layers (particularly Fig's 7 and 14) suggest strongly that the organic component of the red layer is roughly 65-85% of the mass, with the remaining 15-35% being distributed over inorganic substances that include various metals. Marc Basile has quantified his "lucky chip #13" and found it contains >70% carbon alone - which implies more than 85% by weight of some hydrocarbon. On the other hand, the same chip contains only traces of iron and aluminium, such that even if all the Al were elemental and it was all married with all the Fe2O3, there would be less than 5% thermite in the red layer. Considering that thermite has an energy density of <4 kJ/g, but practically all organic substances have energy densities of >15 kJ/g, it follows directly from Basile's study that >98% of the heat of reaction comes from the organic matrix, not from thermite.

Your MEK-soaked chip, ProfJones, is shown in Fig. 14 to contain more C, more O, more Ca, more Si, more S, more Fe and possibly even more Zn than Al. In fact, I am sure you will find that if you run a quantification routine on that spectrum, you will find that it shows less than 1% by weight Al in that chip's red layer (I ran XEDS simulations and estimate 0.6%). With that little Al, the chip could at most contain 4%, more likely <2.4% (most likely 0%, of course) thermite. At the same time, it seems to be about 40% by weight carbon, which would imply close to 50% organic matrix. Again, the energy content of that very real organic matrix exceeds that of the only hypothetical maximum thermite content by a factor of at least 50!

So if your four specimens in the DSC released 1.5-7.5 kJ/g of energy, rest assured that at most 0.03-0.15 kJ/g of that came from thermite. This is too little to even affect the organic matrix much: Given typical values for the heat capacity and enthalpy of gasification of typical organic polymers such as epoxy, the little thermite in the matrix wouldn't even heat the matrix enough to bring it to the brink of decomposition, let alone turn it to gas.


ProfJones, these are the facts that you must face: Your own data, presented in the Harrit e.al. paper, and corroborated by the work of Marc Basile and Dr. Millette, proves convincingly that none of the red gray chips are thermitic.


I don't know why you found this or that kind of spheres in the residue. What I do know is that you found too little (if any at all) Al before any ignition, no Al-oxide after, but too much heat. It all speaks for organic comustion as the main, if not sole, source of reaction heat. Can you exclude, for example, that the organic material, upon being heated, released CO or H2, which then reduced some of the iron oxide (either within the red layer, or of the gray steel layer of oxidized steel)?

Sorry ProfJones, your team is sitting on the samples, your team refuses to release any to your critics, your team did the experiments, your team did and/or documented the experiments inexpertly. It is not our duty to find the answers to the querstions that your experiments failed to address. It is, however, your duty, ProfJones, to respond to valid criticism of your conclusions. I am waiting.


Originally Posted by ProfJones
2. Our Figures 31,32 in the Active Thermitic Materials paper show multiple layers, and Fig. 33 shows the composition of the "light gray" layer. We published these results, and any future study of the WTC dust should also look for these multiple-layered red-gray chips. I intend to explore the dust once again for such multi-layered chips with the new (and skeptical) collaborating scientist.
Now my question to the Jref fellows: It is difficult to see how a "paint" applied to steel could result in such multiple-layered chips as we observed in the WTC dust and published -- have you attempted to account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them.
I am flabbergasted, ProfJones!

What have these chips shown in Fig. 31-33 to do with the other, different kinds of chips on which you did the bulk of the study? The multilayered chip contains "significant Pb" (page 28) - which none of the other chips do. ProfJones, Wouldn't you agree that this chip must be a different material than any of the chips, or their residues, whose spectra are shown in Fig. 7, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26 - you never show Pb in any of these (just 1% Pb in a paint chip of similar composition as chips a-d, with C, O, Al, Si and Fe, would result in a very clear XEDS peak at 2.35 keV, the M-alpha level of Pb, a peak that would be about as prominent as, or even more prominent than, the L-alpha and K-beta peaks of iron at 0.82 and 7.06 keV, respectively, as simulations tools tell us).

So ProfJones, when you dismiss Millette's TEM data as "a different material" because it contains Ti, why do you not also dismiss that multilayered chip, as it most clearly is a different material?

All the conclusions of the Bentham paper rest in no way at all on that multi-layered chip. Instead, they rest on your test results on chips a-d which are all clearly single-layered, the MEK-soaked chip, which is clearly single-layered, and several unknown, uncharacterized, unidentified chips that Dr. Farrer wasted in the DSC.

To even think that the multi-layered chip might be the same material as any of those that went into your conclusions is naive. To ask us, or scientists determined to replicate your tests to consider it, borders on deceptive.

The same goes for the chip in Fig 33 -it clearly must be considered a different material, as the gray layer has no resemblence with the gray layers of chips a-d, except that it is gray.

ProfJones, asking us such nonsense questions doesn't improve your standing. Please try to focus on those experimental results, and those specimens, and those kinds of chips, that you used to form your conclusions! You see, your conclusions do not follow from your data. Don't try to distract from that uncomfortable situation by running away to the discussion of different materials, on which we can only speculate due to a glaring lack of useful data!


Now, ProfJones, there were a few questions to you implied in the posts here that you say you already read, but you did not address them. Please be so kind and do so now:

The first four questions I ask of you follow from the four points I raised yesterday in my own blog, where I offered a response to your current article at 911Blogger:
Steven Jones and Jeff Farrer confirm four of my claims concerning red-gray chips
  1. Do you acknowledge, ProfJones, that (a) there were more primer paints used on WTC steel than the Tnemec formulation you have been talking about so far, most notably the primer by LaClede Steel Company with which the floor joists were painted, (b) the spectra as well as the appearance of chips a-d are a very good match for the LaClede primer formulation (as well as for the LaClede steel - a low-carbon-manganese alloy), (c) that LaClede primer contains a small amount of Strontium Chromate, (d) that Dr. Farrer's finding of small amounts of both Sr and Cr may corroborate the conclusion that some of the chips, including chips a-d, may be LaClede primer on LaClede steel, (e) it is possible that even more different kinds of primers were used on the twin tower cores (for which no brand or specification is known) and WTC7, and other structures?
  2. Can you please acknowledge that, as per Dr. Farrer's comments from september 9th, you can't exclude the conclusion that the platelets in chips a-d are kaolin after all? They contain either as much Si as, or slightly more than, Al, and also a large amount of O (Fig. 11a; compare the C:O ratio there with that in Fig 7 to detrmine that most of the O in Fig 11a must be associated with Si and Al)? As your XRD and TEM data was inconclusive, you should acknowledge that kaolin is a possibility, and elemental Al unproven!
  3. Since you now don't know any longer, and have good reason to doubt, that Tillotson and Gash did their DSC under air, are you ready to cast doubt on the usefulness of the DSC tests Farrer did for the Harrit e.al. paper, and particularly retract the conclusions drawn from it, until the issue has been cleared up? This in light of the facts I gave you avove: That XEDS data shows that only 2% or less of the energy released in Farrer's tests would come from thermite, but 98-100% from reactions of the dominant material, the organic matrix, under air"
  4. Most importantly, ProfJones, could yoiu please clearly acknowledge that you understand by now that the red-gray chips aren't all the same material, and that thus test results gained from one chip can't be assumed to apply to another chip unless you show first that both have the same composition? Please keep in mind that ir was YOU, ProfJones, who suggested that a red-gray chip may be of a different material, if it contains one element that some other red-gray chip does not! When you answer this, please consider the implication this realization has on the conclusions of the Harrit e.al. paper. In particular: Do you realize that the MEK-soaked chip must be a material different from that of chips a-d, and that thus the finding that the MEK-soaked chip may have contained a trace (clearly <1%) of elemental Al cannot validly applied to either chips a-d, in which all the Al seems to be contained in the kaolin-like, Si-, O- and Al-rich platelets, or the unknown chips that Dr. Farrer wasted in the (probably) incorrectly done DSC test?

As this post is growing very long, I shall leave my questions at that. They address some of the information you provided a few days ago, so I hope you will be happy to reply to them and clarify what you think about the implications!




Now some comments on the remainder of your latest comment:

Originally Posted by ProfJones
The geologist PhD that I am now collaborating with wrote to me:
"Our lab is prepared to identify any mineral by XRD, and we often run patterns of kaolinite and aluminum metal."
This sounds good: It is probably good that a geology PhD will be doing this. Please tell me it's not Dr. Griscom (who holds a PhD in physics, but is a member of the Geological Society of America). Also, I understand that XRD is a competent method (as opposed to the DSC and MEK tests) to characterize a range of materials. For example, Tillotson and Gash used (P)XRD to determine that a reaction product of their nano-thermite composition was Al2O3. If this researcher actually does a DSC test, perhaps you could pass on the suggestion that he does (P)XRD both before and after the DSC test, with a specific view to determining presence of alumina and iron oxide pre- and post-burning?

Originally Posted by ProfJones
That is the way science proceeds generally -- experiments and publication (as we did)
Your team wrote in the 2009 Harrit e.al. paper (oage 26): "The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere." As far as I am aware, ProfJones, the FTIR results have not been published. I urge you and your collaborators to do this noa as soon as possible, ideally before any other team spends money and time on experiments that may turn out to be superfluous if you had already published your results!

Originally Posted by ProfJones
as I wrote to my new collaborator -- we must resolve to publish our findings, whatever these turn out to be.
Full agreement, ProfJones! In particular, it is generally recognized today as the ethical duty of any researcher to publish even negative or inconclusive results, as these can be as valubale as positive ones. So...
Originally Posted by ProfJones
I will say that after our paper was published, we went to another lab trying to get XRD patterns that would definitively resolve the question of whether elemental aluminum was present. But like Dr Farrer's TEM results, there was no clear pattern of ANY aluminum-bearing compound in the XRD results. These results have surprised me, not satisfied me. So we go to further experiments.
...I am surprised, and slightly dismayed, that your team has not only withheld the crucial FTIR and TEM data from public scrutiny, but also XRD results! Why, ProfJones?? Why did you publish the results from all the incompetent tests, and none from the competent tests?? You are certainly aware how that must taste to a true sceptic of your science?


ProfJones, it is high time, very high time, and extremely urgent, that you, Dr. Farrer, Niels Harrit and whoever else got to do work on your dust samples, publish ALL your data ASAP! At the very least, I ask you sincerely to call your collaborators and get from them a very clear statement if end when they are going to fully disclose the experimental data already obtained! Perhaps I might suggest that we don't wait till you all get the time to write a clean paper that would be fit for journal publication, and rather just compile the data as is, with a few annotations, perhaps similar to Dr. Millette's preliminary report? Such data "dumps" might well be hosted at the Journal of 9/11 Studies - why not ask its editors, Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan? What do you think, ProfJones?
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 September 2012, 07:11 AM   #1056
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-...comment-257544

Originally Posted by remo
But. Seriously, Zica..all... http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm as linked by Poseiden.......
("Poseidon" posted further up in that 911Blogger post - and he also debated me and Ivan in the comment section of my blog post "Another primer at the WTC: LaClede Standard Primer")


remo, I wonder if you and the censors of 911Blogger, who allowed Poseidon's post but denied mine, read what Poseidon wrote - first two sentences:

Originally Posted by Poseidon
The study by Dr. Jim Millette has confirmed that the red/gray chips found in the dust associated with the destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) are paint chips. The WTC steel featured several different primer paints, with Tnemec used for the perimeter columns, and Laclede - which contains no zinc - for the floor trusses.
I wonder if you (and ProfJones) agree or disagree with Poseidon's interpretation of the Jones/Farrer/Harrit paper?
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 September 2012, 02:22 PM   #1057
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
not banned, just censored

[Note: This post is a reply to this comment by zica at 911Blogger]


Hi zica,

thanks for standing up for free, yet courteous speech.

No, I am not banned here. I can login freely and I can compose and submit comments. However, by default, my comments are not displayed until a moderator approves. This latter step never happens. Or well, it happened exactly once, and for the first time, on september 10th when I congratulated Jon Gold for having received 1000 signatures on his current petition in time for the anniversary. Which proves there is no software glitch and no automatism that would bin my posts.

I have signed up here some time in spring, and have written perhaps a dozend comments, chiefly on posts about the Millette study and red-gray chips. I criticized AE911Truth for blatantly misrepresenting Millette's conclusions - that was CENSORED. I wrote to Frank Legge about a misconception he had about the gray layer - CENSORED. I commented on that obscure and irrelevant patent that SittingBull dug up, and that remo and ProfJones seized upon, and why the material described therein is not the material the Harrit/Jones red-gray chips are made of - CENSORED. I had a comment on a post by ProfJones where he linked to an article by onkologist Dr. Mercola - it wasn't allowed. I corrected a few errors, misrepresentations and omissions in a recent post on retired Italian judge Imposimato - CENSORED.

zica, I have several of the comments copied and pasted to a text document for my own records. I could post them elsewhere, so you can decide for yourself if I was censored because of my conduct, or because of my content. For me, it is clear: Criticism, correction of errors, and open debate are not desired by the moderators of 911Blogger. They seem determined to shield the Movement from certain uncomfortable facts.

I exchanged a few emails with one moderator, John Wright, back in March, and he promised I wasn't censored for content, and that he would look into my non-allowed comments. Nothing came of this. It was only after that when I started to occasionally save my attempts at comments.

So naturally I will not spend much more time trying to write here before the situation isn't clarified.

(This comment posted both at 911Blogger and JREF)
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 September 2012, 09:12 PM   #1058
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
The judgement calls of the censors at 911Blogger are getting bizarre now. Headline:

911 Blogger allows Holocaust Denial, censors Science!


In the current thread on Letter regarding red/gray chip analyses, they allowed this comment by user "Poseidon":
Originally Posted by Poseidon
"Gas chambers"? Which gas chambers would those be? The delousing chambers with very high cyanide levels in the walls, that were used to save human lives? ...
Yet about three comments that I posted, which addressed the science of red-gray chip analysis, were CENSORED.

I wonder if remo, ProfJones or SittingBull agree that 911Blogger should host Holocaust Denialism, but censor scientific criticism of 9/11 claims?!
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 September 2012, 09:53 PM   #1059
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by remo
But. Seriously, Zica..all... http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm as linked by Poseiden.......
Quote:
Let's make it clear. A group of Jewish fanatics orchestrated 9/11. http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm
Jones paper backed by bigots. Not surprised, already dumbed down with hate, neoNAZIs are ripe for believing Jones' folly.

Last edited by beachnut; 13th September 2012 at 09:55 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2012, 11:15 PM   #1060
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Jones paper backed by bigots. Not surprised, already dumbed down with hate, neoNAZIs are ripe for believing Jones' folly.
Urrr no. Poseidon has stated clearly that Jones's conclusions are wrong and that the chips are paint.
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 14th September 2012, 12:00 AM   #1061
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,729
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Urrr no. Poseidon has stated clearly that Jones's conclusions are wrong and that the chips are paint.
Right, but is he the one saying Jones did find thermite on his chips? lol, the plot gets dumber.

Paint with thermite? Contaminated by SRFM? Wow, it is worse than I thought.

Quote:
Millette study fails to refute crucial findings by Harrit et al
http://www.takeourworldback.com/mill...tm#SFRMUpgrade
Quote:
How the accelerants were applied
An outline of the likely WTC1 demolition scenario is necessary in order to account for why the red/gray chips would have active accelerant material on the outer surface of the red layer of unwashed chips whilst containing no elemental aluminum within the chips. On the outer surface of the structural steel, e.g., floor trusses, is a layer of oxidized steel known as mill scale. Adjacent to this is the primer paint, and adjacent to that is the spray-applied fire resistive material (SFRM), popularly termed "fireproofing". The red/gray "chips" are flakes of primer (red layer) and mill scale (gray layer). The adhesion strength of the epoxy binding the primer to the mill scale can exceed the adhesion of the mill scale to the steel substrate, which is much lower than the ultimate strength of steel. After destruction / removal of the SFRM, whether by office fires, aircraft impact, building collapse or arson accelerant, flakes of the two middle layers remain as the "red/gray chips".
Who posted this?
http://www.takeourworldback.com/mill...tm#SFRMUpgrade
Who is the neoNAZI?
It is hard to tell what they believe, what they say.
Jones is pure BS, he has problems, spreading lies about 911.

Wow, it gets worse. Yes, someone says it is paint, but the findings of Jones are thermite, but it was in the ...
Quote:
contamination from accelerant material, embedded within the 3 inches of SFRM directly in contact with the primer, remained on other unwashed chips and was responsible for the post-ignition iron-rich spheres
Better get bigger tent, they are adding sub idiot claims to the mix.

Was this for you?
Quote:
Debunkers, with their minor success regarding paint chips, may have won a battle, but they have lost the war.
I was reading quickly; now that you "corrected" me, it is much worse than what I thought. Who posted and backs the paint chips are contaminated by lots of thermite in the SFRM? remo, or the p-guy?
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 14th September 2012, 12:38 AM   #1062
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
...Was this for you?
Yeah, I guess ot was!
Ivan and I had a discussion with Poseidon on my own blog. He is a smart guy, have to give him that, he understood my arguments and the science behind them, had a few of valid points and some good ideas.

But then...

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I was reading quickly; now that you "corrected" me, it is much worse than what I thought. Who posted and backs the paint chips are contaminated by lots of thermite in the SFRM? remo, or the p-guy?
... he came up with his own brand of lunacy Which is when the debate on my blog ended

It's like him and me agreeing on reasons why Christianity is bunk, only to find that he believes in YHW/Allah after all and has invented his own radical islamic sect

Last edited by Oystein; 14th September 2012 at 12:40 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 14th September 2012, 06:27 AM   #1063
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
At 911Blogger, zica and Sitting-Bull have now expressed their disagreement with the moderation policies - thanks to both!

I submitted a reply to this comment by rm. Since the expectation is that mods will not approve of my posting, I repost it here:

Applies to all

(Note: This comment will also be posted at JREF inj the expectation that 911Blogger moderators will censor me again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...140017&page=27 )


<blockquote>People sincerely committed to exposing the falsehoods of the 9/11 official story should ask themselves, when they encounter those encouraging such views within the movement--does this really sound like something that will help this effort?</blockquote>
Full agreement.

This reasoning applies vis-a-vis <i>every</i> claimant, claim and argument in the movement.

Particularly, people sincerely committed to exposing the falsehoods of the 9/11 official story should ask themselves if the claim by Harrit and Jones that the red-gray chips are "actrive thermitic material" (specifically: elemental Al and iron oxide in nano-sized particles) is true, or if it is false and a liability. They will find it is not true. It is FALSE - yet it is so widely believed by so many - here, at AE911Truth, and on so many boards.

This will come back to haunt you. The sooner you allow a reasoned, scientific debate, ask hard questions of ProfJones and his collaborators and demand truthful answers instead of evasions and new speculations, the better for your movement.


<b>ProfJones</b>, can you acknowledge that the various red-gray chips represent several <i>different</i> materials? You even implied as much in this very post when you speculated that Dr. Millette may have looked at a different material when he analyzed a red-gray chip with TEM.

<b>ProfJones</b>, can you acknowledge that there were at least two, possibly more, <i>different</i> primer paints applied to WTC steel, and that specifically there was the LaClede primer on the floor joists? These probably had a greater painted surface than the Tnemec-primed perimeter columns, and can thus be expected to be more plentiful in the dust.

<b>ProfJones</b>, can you at this time state clearly that your team has NO evidence that the platelets in chips a-d are anything but Kaolin, and that you could't identify elemental Al in them?

<b>ProfJones</b>, can you acknowledge that Dr. Farrer's finding of Strontium and Chromate may corroborate the hypothesis that these chips a-d are in fact LaClede primer on spalled, oxidized steel - a paint formulation whose XEDS spectrum would match those in Fig 7 almost perfectly and which contains traces of Sr-chromate?

<b>ProfJones</b>, can you acknowledge that you are inforned about the observation that the XEDS spectrum of Tnemec paint that you presented in Sydney is remarkably similar to that of the MEK-soaked chip, whle that chip's spectrum is very much different from that of chips a-d?

<b>ProfJones</b>, wouldn't agree that you should suspend any and all judgment on the validity and usefulness of DSC testing until your team figures out how (and why!) the experts at LLNL did it, and refrain from making any recommendations to other scientists?

In short, <b>ProfJones</b>, can you admit that your conclusions in the 2009 paper are facing serious challenges of fact and logic in 2012?

<b>ProfJones</b>, I think you should refrain from confusing the debate by dragging in red herrings and speculation like the multilayered chip (which is so obviously different from all the others) or an obscure patent for a material that has nothing in common with any of the chips. You should stop appealing to imagination, and instead acknowledge and apply facts and scientific reasoning.


AE911Truth has written in a newsletter to all their fans that "Millette comcluded the chips aren't paint". This was WRONG - Millette concluded the opposite: That every characteristic of the chips is consistent with paint; he merely has not YET identified the paint brand, and said that SOME chips aren't Tnemec.
AE911Truth should thus be URGED to retract this FALSE claim they made earlier and include a correction in their nexr newsletter.


And every reader of 911Blogger should be genuinly sceptic and critical! Do not assume that a person is wrong because he is actiive at JREF, or that another person is right because he has a PhD and believes what you believe!


This is the time now to see if 911Blogger is committed to open discourse and actual truth.
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 14th September 2012, 07:18 PM   #1064
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,063
Zica has posted your post at 9/11 Blogger, Oystein.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay 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 14th September 2012, 08:34 PM   #1065
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by remo
But. Seriously, Zica..all... http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm as linked by Poseiden.......
That "article" is one big bundle of stupid. It's a typical conspiracist word salad that takes forever to make no substantive claims backed by anything other than speculation.

I've seen birthers who have a similar style. Idiots see stuff like that and say, "Boy, he sure uses a lot of words! He must know what he's talkin' about!"

Last edited by Redwood; 14th September 2012 at 08:36 PM. Reason: Korrected speling.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2012, 12:36 AM   #1066
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,204
Well, for one, and to comment only on the part that is on topic here, in the conclusions it says:
If some chips were thermitic and some were merely paint, then it would be highly unlikely that Harrit et al would end up with thermitic chips with elemental Al and keep getting Fe spheres after heating, whilst Millette consistently got Laclede paint.
It's not true that "Millete consistently got Laclede paint". He merely selected for study the chips that matched samples a-d, which were most likely Laclede paint or similar.

Interestingly, it goes on to say that
The best fit to the data is that all chips were paint chips (and some were different primers) but some elemental Al from the accelerant remained after the MEK soak.
And later, it fails again to understand the scope of Millette's work when stating that
The best explanation for Millette's conflicting results of no elemental aluminum or thermitic reactions is the fact that Millette washed his chips.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2012, 01:07 AM   #1067
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
A couple of notes to zica at 911Blogger:

1. I read all new comments up until now

2. Thanks again for helping the debate by posting my texts!

3. I will attend a wedding today and won't have time for a substantive reply before tomorrow, so please be little patient.

4. Just one thing: Can you suggest another convenient name for people believing in alternative theories for 9/11 (this is putting it as politely as I can)? The word "truther" in my mind is neither applicable nor acceptable, as what these people believe is usually quite untrue, IMO.

5. I obviously cannot control how other JREF posters talk about you, and expect that you won't hold the conduct of others against me. But rest assured that I do on occasion report abuses here, or privately or publicly ask JREF members to please clean up their act. Ask beachnut for example, I wrote him such mails more than once, most recently just a few days ago (on another topic).

6. I believe part of the reason that you or ProfJones can post, but my posts don't appear, is that I am on a status where all my posts are automatically queued for manual moderator approval, while yours are automatically approved. Is that so - your posts are shown publicly immediately after you submitted them? If yes, then there could possibly be an issue of moderators being on vacation, soundly asleep, overwhelmed, uninterested or lazy, rather than a series of conscious decisions to censor me and approve, for example, of Poseidon's HD rant.

7. Cross-posting, or importing debates from other forums, is usually a no-no and may be against the Membership Agreement here - I'd have to check up on that. I hope JREF mods allow it in this case as it seems to currently be the best or only way to serve the JREF purpose in this particular case: To address and expose irrational believes and educate the public about why they are wrong. I'd much prefer if either you guys would sign up here, or 911Blogger would give me a more prefered status.

Have a nice day y'all.

Last edited by Oystein; 15th September 2012 at 01:13 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 15th September 2012, 01:43 PM   #1068
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,462
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Well, for one, and to comment only on the part that is on topic here, in the conclusions it says:
If some chips were thermitic and some were merely paint, then it would be highly unlikely that Harrit et al would end up with thermitic chips with elemental Al and keep getting Fe spheres after heating, whilst Millette consistently got Laclede paint.
It's not true that "Millete consistently got Laclede paint". He merely selected for study the chips that matched samples a-d, which were most likely Laclede paint or similar.

Interestingly, it goes on to say that
The best fit to the data is that all chips were paint chips (and some were different primers) but some elemental Al from the accelerant remained after the MEK soak.
And later, it fails again to understand the scope of Millette's work when stating that
The best explanation for Millette's conflicting results of no elemental aluminum or thermitic reactions is the fact that Millette washed his chips.
As I said, it's one giant bundle of stupid. We're never told what this "accelerant" is, but it apparently contains elemental aluminum, and it's water soluble.And the writer gives no evidence. It's pure cargo-cult science.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2012, 02:22 PM   #1069
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
As I said, it's one giant bundle of stupid. We're never told what this "accelerant" is, but it apparently contains elemental aluminum, and it's water soluble.And the writer gives no evidence. It's pure cargo-cult science.
Poseidon's theory is "incendiaries made of elemental Al and some oxidizer other than iron oxide were part of the spray-on fire proofing they renewed after 1993".

But since that theory is off topic over there, I think it is off topic here. Let's not get distracted.
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 15th September 2012, 04:04 PM   #1070
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Out of interest, and since I have seen people raise doubts about this, has the existence and true definition (along with the explosive properties) of Nano-thermite ever been confirmed (especially existence in 2001)?

On a sidenote, as a Dane, I think the state of Denmark ought to make an official apology for Niels Harrit, and confirm that he in no way constitutes the Danish standard for practicing science...
AsbjornAndersen 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 15th September 2012, 04:28 PM   #1071
ergo
Illuminator
 
ergo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 4,339
Lol. With all due respect, my friend, with posts like the one referred here, I don't think you want to be speaking for Danes in any capacity. Thanks.
__________________
“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public" - Steven Badger, attorney for insurance litigators affected by the WTC disaster.
ergo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2012, 04:42 PM   #1072
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,729
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
Out of interest, and since I have seen people raise doubts about this, has the existence and true definition (along with the explosive properties) of Nano-thermite ever been confirmed (especially existence in 2001)?

On a sidenote, as a Dane, I think the state of Denmark ought to make an official apology for Niels Harrit, and confirm that he in no way constitutes the Danish standard for practicing science...
He is a conspiracy theorist, he makes up silly comments about 911 and helped Jones publish a failed paper with a crazy conclusions. Crazy happens.

It is funny, they found Al and Fe in their dust, two of the top four elements found in the earth's crust.

I would hate to have a contest who has the most nuts who make crazy claims.

The velocity of thermite reaction is not as fast as an explosive. You could argue it is not an explosive, but 911 truth nuts will show you one that kind of fizzles and bangs and say, "see". They leave out the numbers, and speed of reaction.
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 15th September 2012, 06:00 PM   #1073
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 14,580
Originally Posted by ergo View Post
Lol. With all due respect, my friend, with posts like the one referred here, I don't think you want to be speaking for Danes in any capacity. Thanks.
What specifically is wrong with that post, ergo?
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2012, 01:17 AM   #1074
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Wow, a lot of a new stuff here

S. Jones has just added a new reaction to Oystein's post in 911Blogger.

Jones wrote: "Wait – “basing this claim on the FALSE assumption that Tnemec was the only primer used.” What nonsense! I never made such an claim. Who made this claim anyway? I'm challenging you to back up your assertion."
Prof. Jones, read e.g. Harrit's white paper http://ae911truth.org/downloads/docu...els_Harrit.pdf. It is based on the assumption that only one red steel primer was used in WTC. And the same assumption has been used in all truthers documents, including "official" web AE911Truth etc.

As expected, Jones still uses the old "iron-rich microspheres formation" argument, nothing new in this respect.

But later on, Jones tries to confuse truthers on 911Blogger even more, now with the "lead argument".

Oystein wrote: "The multilayered chip contains "significant Pb" (page 28) - which none of the other chips do."
Jones replied: "Why do you keep saying there is no lead when there was lead? Now, it is true that the SEM-XEDS did not disclose lead as did the TEM data; this I think is partly because the TEM data were acquired at higher electron-beam energies. The lead (Pb) is there in our samples."

And what exactly is written in Bentham paper? "We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers."

So, there was perhaps some lead in some chips, but we have no direct proof (as Oystein noted). Why you did not present at least some table with XEDS composition of your "lead chips", Prof. Jones? Anyway, very apparently, those chips can be just paints with some lead compounds, frequently used in primers. But why they should be thermites, Prof. Jones?

Jones also came with the "mystery" of multilayered chip on Fig. 31: "So again, how do you “account for the multiple-layered chips which we reported finding in the WTC dust? Millette does not mention them."

Prof. Jones
, my explanation is like this: Millette did not find such multilayered chips since they are rare in the dust. You showed only one or two chips of this sort (Fig. 31, 32), you did not present XEDS analyses of their red layers and we have again no reason to think that they are anything else than paints (or perhaps some deffects in paint layers)

Jones also wrote: "Look, Oystein, why don't you put a sample of Tnemec primer in MEK and soak it, and see whether it becomes limp (as I say) or remains very hard under forceps? Do debunkers ever do experiments? I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find! "

Does it mean that the swelling of MEK chip was compared with the authentic sample of Tnemec primer in Bentham paper? Tell us, Prof. Jones! Up to now, we have had no idea what kind of paint you used in your "swelling tests"
(Btw, such test could be quite easy to accomplish, several chips of Tnemec from some WTC monument, bottle of MEK solvent and ordinary microscope would suffice...

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th September 2012 at 02:25 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 16th September 2012, 01:45 AM   #1075
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Btw, I just have looked at the "white paper" of Poseidon, titled "Millette study fails to refute crucial findings by Harrit et al. Accelerant is on the chips, not in them" (?)

Incredible Does Poseidon really expect that anybody in this world is willing/able to read this extremely long, complex and bizzare mixture of quite good and quite weird analyses (as for red-gray chips), pure speculations and explicit antisemitic crap?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th September 2012 at 02:22 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 16th September 2012, 02:19 AM   #1076
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
He is a conspiracy theorist, he makes up silly comments about 911 and helped Jones publish a failed paper with a crazy conclusions. Crazy happens.

It is funny, they found Al and Fe in their dust, two of the top four elements found in the earth's crust.

I would hate to have a contest who has the most nuts who make crazy claims.

The velocity of thermite reaction is not as fast as an explosive. You could argue it is not an explosive, but 911 truth nuts will show you one that kind of fizzles and bangs and say, "see". They leave out the numbers, and speed of reaction.
As a chemist, he should at least have had some idea of what he was doing, which he clearly had not. But of course, crazy people exist everywhere

BTW the Danish prime minister at the time was allegedly in on it He was told that the tower (not sure which) was close to collapse, and then he had a confirmation that it had actually happened. Striking evidence! That would make the "job" both inside and outside
AsbjornAndersen 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 16th September 2012, 09:37 AM   #1077
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
... some more quotes from S. Jones' response to Oystein post on 911Blogger:

"First, Does payment motivate your efforts to defend the “official story” of 9/11? Note: I receive zero payments for my research on 9/11, and lost my university position seeking the truth about 9/11."
This quote is perhaps interesting in several aspects. First, Prof. Jones expectably suspects that Oystein is a payed government shill. Not really Truth, I would say, since as I know, Oystein has only payed some his money, for Jim Millette's falsification of Bentham paper, seeking the truth about 9/11 (together with me and other people including truthers here).

In this respect, it is interesting that Jones basically ignores preliminary results of this Millette's study, for which we payed. He only asks why Oystein is not willing to find another "suspicious" multilayered chips and do other experiments, like chips swelling in MEK etc. Prof. Jones, you seem to completely forget that we have necessary experimental results from the real scientific falsification of Bentham paper which was accomplished (thanks to Chris Mohr), and although the conclusions are preliminary, results clearly show some "epoxy resin coating with primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments". A perfect match for "Laclede primer, btw, but anyway and for sure some red paint (e.g. because of prevailing organic polymeric material, etc).
Prof. Jones, we have some/many new experimental results as for red-gray chips from WTC dust. Where are yours?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 16th September 2012 at 09:58 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 16th September 2012, 11:42 AM   #1078
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Today was perhaps the last summer sunday of the year, so I was outside and enjoyed the sun and played a little game of bare-footed football (the English sport that is actually played with your feet and with an actual ball) with some friends, until I stepped on a wasp and was stung. Result: I am not in the mood to research and reply at length tonight.

Just four quick remarks.

1. ProfJones writes "Does payment motivate your efforts to defend the “official story” of 9/11?"

Answer: No.

I trust that anyone who thinks about that question for even 10 seconds will realize that it is not the kind of question that actually expects to retrieve information, but rather a passive-aggressive, insinuating, suggestive statement. ProfJones, please retract that question, even though I already answered it. It is insulting. As you perhaps know, insults inform us about the character of the insulter, not the insulted.

Besides, whether my arguments are valid or not depends in no way, shape or form on whether I am payed for anything by anyone. Please address the argument, not the arguer.


2. ProfJones writes: "this anonymous Oystein fellow ... why does he hide behind anonymity? ... will you identify yourself in the interest of transparency and truth?"

First, I am not entirely anonymous. Coincidentally, your (ProfJones's) appreciated[1] supporter Sitting-Bull wrote in his blog just yesterday: "Mein Fazit: Wenigstens traut sich „Oystein“ aus der Anonymität heraus, gibt seiner Gegenrede einen Namen und ein Gesicht, ich bin überzeugt, er meint es ernsthaft und aufrichtig, auch wenn ich vieles von dem, was er schlussfolgert, in keinster Weise nachvollziehen kann und ihn bestenfalls als „verrannt“ bezeichnen würde (was er sicherlich im Gegenzug auch von mir denken wird)" (my emphasise). Partial Translation: "My conclusion: At least Oystein dares to step out of anonymity, gives his opposing speech a a name and a face...". Sitting-bull repeated this at 911Blogger: "Oystein is not anonymous, at least I met him and know his name. You can see a picture of him and me in my latest blog entry".

Now to answer you: No, I will not disclose my real name publicly. The reason is rather mundane: While you are already retired and enjoy retirement benefits you can't lose, I am self-employed and still have at least 20 years of career ahead of me. My name is very rare - I don't want potential future business partners, who may google my name, give the impression that this hobby of debunking the false science of 9/11 CTs is what I am all about. However, on the condition that my name remains off the public record, I'd have no problems talking to you directly and using my real name and standard email address. Just one other condition, to build a measure of minimum trust: Take back the question whether I get payed or not.
I just don't know at this time how to contact you privately.

Besides, whether my arguments are valid or not, whether my claims are true or not, depends in no way, shape or form on my name, face, education or your knowldege of these. Please address the arguments, not the arguer!


3. You are arguing with unpublished experimental data with which you don't seem to be really familiar. It is nonsense to expect me to respond to your statements about Pb in the TEM data, if I don't have the TEM data. Please see to it that it gets published ASAP. Have you asked Dr. Farrer (or any other collaborator that may have unpublished data) to commit to a due date to publish it all? If not, please do so now! We are waiting for the FTIR, TEM and XRD data!


4. ProfJones writes "I say, do the experiment and let us know what you find!"

Unnecessary. I fully accept the data of the experiments already done, by your team, by Marc Basile, by Dr. Millette. Each set of data taken alone suffices to come to the conclusion that the chips are likely various paints and probably none are thermitic. Taken all data that's already on the table together, that conclusion is inevitable. There remains no trace of prima facie evidence that there is thermite in these chips. I trust that when you and your collaborators have published all your data, including the FTIR, TEM and XRD results, that conclusion will become clear to many who so far believed you: You have not found any significant elemental Al. With that finding, thermite is off the table. No further experiment is necessary.



[1] ProfJones wrote on 09/08/2012: "I appreciate people like you, sittingbull and others, who have the time and stomach to deal with the debunkers." (my emphasise)

Last edited by Oystein; 16th September 2012 at 11:43 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 17th September 2012, 01:28 AM   #1079
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
I'm ready to admit that there are different kind of chips in the dust because i found only one red-grey chip in all my 4 samples (of different origins) exactly fitting the description by S Jones publication , but unfortunately lost it for further investigations (appart from microscopic inspection and spectroscopy).
All the other chips i had was red on both faces and did not produce molten iron when heated even at much more than 400°C.
Instead their carbon content seemed to have burned (carbon disappeared after heating) .

The red material in all those chips have the same chemical spectra as in Jones paper.

So the intriguiing question for me was : how can it be that in this dust there are so many (easy to catch with a magnet) chips with exactly the same spectra and yet of completely different kinds:

- some produce molten iron when heated according Jones and collaborators and i can hardly imagine that carbon burning would be enough to melt the iron content of the chips

-some others do not and actually involve kaolinite according millette and others

for me there is no other possible answer but: either there are liers in this debate (i dont know who are the liers) or (and) some of the samples were manipulated: either some fresh nanothermite particles were added to some samples before being sent to the independent investigators (so no nanothermite originally in WTC dust) or some other samples were heated before being sent to investigators to prevent them discover unreacted nanothermite particles which were indeed in the wtc dust.

This is why i have given up this investigation a long time ago because eventually you need to rely on other people (dust suppliers, possible intermediaries, other investigators).
I think this nanothermite debate is just a waste of time and it was triggered on this purpose.

I have another problem with the nanothermite hypothesis which i 'm surprised nobody else have talked about here: how could there remain unreacted aluminium nanoparticles in the dust several years after given the extremely fast aging (oxydation) of Al nanoparticles in air.

So i came back to the towers kinematic analysis because then you just need
one perfectly reliable material: the CNN video.

F H-C
henryco 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 17th September 2012, 01:46 AM   #1080
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 13,988
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
I'm ready to admit that there are different kind of chips in the dust because i found only one red-grey chip in all my 4 samples (of different origins) exactly fitting the description by S Jones publication ,
...
The red material in all those chips have the same chemical spectra as in Jones paper.
I don't understand these two statements.
The spectra in Harrit e.al. aren't all the same - Fig 14 differs so markedly from Fig 7, you can'd hand-wave that. Also, Harrit e.al. point out in the text how they found other chips with different spectra: Some contain lead, others don't. Some contain copper, others don't. Some contain barium, others don't. In the spectra of post-DSC residue, one contained significant titanium, others didn't.

So already in Harrit e.al. it is obvious that there are several kinds of chips with, obviously, different EDS spectra.

What does it mean then when you say "chips have the same spectrum as in the S Jones publication"? I think you are specifically referring to Fig 6 and 7, o.e. chips a-d?

Originally Posted by henryco View Post
So the intriguiing question for me was : how can it be that in this dust there are so many (easy to catch with a magnet) chips with exactly the same spectra and yet of completely different kinds:

- some produce molten iron when heated according Jones and collaborators and i can hardly imagine that carbon burning would be enough to melt the iron content of the chips

-some others do not and actually involve kaolinite according millette and others

for me there is no other possible answer but: either there are liars in this debate (i dont know who are the liars) or (and) some of the samples were manipulated: either some fresh nanothermite particles were added to some samples before being sent to the independent investigators (so no nanothermite originally in WTC dust) or some other samples were heated before being sent to investigators to prevent them discover unreacted nanothermite particles which were indeed in the wtc dust.
...
The option "some fresh nanothermite particles were added to some samples before being sent to the independent investigators" can be ruled out as nothing in the Harrit e.al. paper, and nothing in any other work (i.e. Mark Basile's) describes nanoparticles of elemental Al. There simply is no unreacted nanothermite.

The Harrit e.al. paper is titled "Active Thermitic Material found...", implying, in context, that they found significant amounts of elemental Al in the relevant chips. They did not. There also is no indication that a thermite reaction has taken place, for example no proof of both reaction products, includung Al oxide.

All that Jones and his collaborators are left with is some microspheres of varying compositions. As far as I can see, they have done no competent qualitative and quantitative analysis of these spheres; and their explanation for when and how these were created is highly dubious.
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
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 09:08 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.