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 911 debunking , 911 debunking resources , ae911truth , controlled demolition , richard gage , world trade center , wtc 7

Closed Thread
Old 7th May 2012, 11:25 PM   #4521
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi everyone,

I quoted some of Chris7's accusations directly to Jim Millette. The new chant, "he didn't do DSC so his work is useless" elicited this response from him:

Chris,

My assessment of the situation is that researchers performed DSC on some WTC chips and found what they thought was an exothermic reaction. They then formed a hypothesis that this might be caused by thermite materials in the dust. As is required in scientific inquires their hypothesis was testable. They set out to confirm their hypothesis by testing the chips. Their microscopical analysis showed some results that they concluded were consistent with thermite or nano-thermite. I was asked to analyze the materials to see if I could confirm or not confirm their conclusion. My initial tests showed similar findings in terms of the characteristics of the chips. However, additional testing following analytical forensic methods showed that the chips were not thermite or nano-thermite. We repeated the tests on 4 different samples from different locations and found the same result not thermite. It seems to me that the ball is now in their court. The DSC testing can suggest a type of material based on thermal properties but cannot be used to prove the existence of thermite. If they believe that the DSC results clearly show an exothermic reaction they need to come up with another testable hypothesis as to what the chips are as they are not thermite.

Jim
Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns
Christopher7 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 8th May 2012, 12:16 AM   #4522
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns
This post is a beautiful example of several of the main errors that truthers make...

1. Assuming their non expert opinion is as valuable as an experts.

2. Assuming they understand the basics of something technical.

3. Asking questions that show a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

4. Oversimplifying and overgeneralizing things.

5. Making faulty conclusions based off of faulty reasoning.

6. Inability to research something even when the answers are a forum search away.

7. Fundamental errors in analytical thinking, logic, basic reasoning, reading comprehension, mathematics, engineering, and science.

I can go on but that is good enough for now.

I do not know how Jim will respond, but if I received something like this at work I would respond one of two ways.....

I would either ignore it
or
I would write a somewhat nasty letter back chastising the author for asking stupid questions while being clueless. Most Engineers/Scientists would just ignore it which it what I suspect Jim will do.

Chris Sarns....it is okay to waste a professionals time here on the internet where we make a decision to log on and engage in these asinine discussions.....but please do not send us emails, call us on the telephone, or ask questions in person. Wasting time on here is okay...but once you move outside this arena it really is not.

Don't waste professionals time with this crap.
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%

Last edited by newton3376; 8th May 2012 at 12:18 AM.
newton3376 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 8th May 2012, 01:36 AM   #4523
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
This post is a beautiful example of several of the main errors that truthers make...

1. Assuming their non expert opinion is as valuable as an experts.

2. Assuming they understand the basics of something technical.

3. Asking questions that show a lack of understanding of the subject matter.

4. Oversimplifying and overgeneralizing things.

5. Making faulty conclusions based off of faulty reasoning.

6. Inability to research something even when the answers are a forum search away.

7. Fundamental errors in analytical thinking, logic, basic reasoning, reading comprehension, mathematics, engineering, and science.

I can go on but that is good enough for now.

I do not know how Jim will respond, but if I received something like this at work I would respond one of two ways.....

I would either ignore it
or
I would write a somewhat nasty letter back chastising the author for asking stupid questions while being clueless. Most Engineers/Scientists would just ignore it which it what I suspect Jim will do.

Chris Sarns....it is okay to waste a professionals time here on the internet where we make a decision to log on and engage in these asinine discussions.....but please do not send us emails, call us on the telephone, or ask questions in person. Wasting time on here is okay...but once you move outside this arena it really is not.

Don't waste professionals time with this crap.
Thank you. You saved me writing it.
Quote:
Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.
Is a perfect example of Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns spouting rubbish but thinking he has a point. Why would TEM-SAED analysis "get them to separate"??????? Chris obviously hasn't the first clue about the analysis or the chemistry of these materials. In fact he doesn't understand any chemistry at all?

As you say it's a waste of time.
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 8th May 2012, 02:07 AM   #4524
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,578
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
...Chris Sarns....it is okay to waste a professionals time here on the internet where we make a decision to log on and engage in these asinine discussions.....but please do not send us emails, call us on the telephone, or ask questions in person. Wasting time on here is okay...but once you move outside this arena it really is not.

Don't waste professionals time with this crap.
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Thank you. You saved me writing it.
Is a perfect example of Chris "it's all greek to me" Sarns spouting rubbish.....As you say it's a waste of time.
Thank you both.

I have over recent months and on several occasions "credited" C7 with being the most effective troll here. I have expressed concern that ChrisMohr has been prepared to extent C7 the common courtesy of treating him as if he was genuinely interested in discussion. My own judgement totally the opposite. No discussion involving C7 has made any significant progress. And preventing progress by causing the debate to circle is not a truther goal. Not the honest goal of a truthful truther interested in the pursuit of truth. (Is that alliteration or doesn't it qualify??? )
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 8th May 2012, 02:48 AM   #4525
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
On the previous page I wrote this to Christopher7, but he has not replied. I suspect he's got me on ignore, so could somebody please quote or copy this?

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I think they already did (FTIR data). Pay no attention "truthers" to the data they refuse to release.

It's in the paper, page 26:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al:
"The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere."
Also, both Harrit and Jones have said in interviews later in 2009 that Jeff Farrer had already done TEM analysis, identified Fe2O3 with it, but apparently had no conclusions on the aluminium-content (i.e. the Kaolin, if he happened to look at "type a-d" chips.


Contrary to what they wrote in the paper, the FTIR data was never published, neither was the TEM data.

Frank Legge, one of the co-authors, wrote recently (about early march, I think) on 911Blogger that he wanted to ask Jones about both data sets. No reply yet.

AE911Twoof wrote in their March-newsletter that they would have a critique of Millette's preliminary report in the April newsletter. But there wasn't any such critique.



Christopher7, I believe you have personal contacts to some of the authors of Harrit e.al.
Would you be so kind as to get a comment from them on
  • why the FTIR data that they said they already HAD done was never published
  • why the TEM data was never published
  • why the critique of Millette has not been included in the newsletter
  • and if they would at least dump some raw data of the FTIR and TEM analysis somewhere. Perhaps Ryan and Legge could accomodate it in their Journal of 911 Studies?

Thanks. That would really help.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 04:18 AM   #4526
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.
If the inside goes first, what does it do to the outside?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 05:21 AM   #4527
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.
And you still don't understand the difference between average and instantaneous acceleration.
thedopefishlives 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 8th May 2012, 06:44 AM   #4528
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
A structure cannot pull itself down.
As a whole, that's right. But that's a straw man since that's not what happened. Parts of a system can pull other parts of a system down, as we saw in WTC7 and in the crane video I showed to you, which exhibited over-G acceleration. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg or are you denying that there's over-G in that video?


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin.
That's new to me.

Last edited by pgimeno; 8th May 2012 at 07:36 AM. Reason: Refine what's new to me
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 Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 07:50 AM   #4529
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
As a whole, that's right. But that's a straw man since that's not what happened. Parts of a system can pull other parts of a system down, as we saw in WTC7 and in the crane video I showed to you, which exhibited over-G acceleration. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yG1JrEdt3Mg or are you denying that there's over-G in that video?
Or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
Animal 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 8th May 2012, 07:52 AM   #4530
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
On the previous page I wrote this to Christopher7, but he has not replied. I suspect he's got me on ignore, so could somebody please quote or copy this?
I suspect he's plain ignoring you, not put you on ignore. But here it goes.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
It's in the paper, page 26:
Originally Posted by Harrit e al:
"The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere."
Also, both Harrit and Jones have said in interviews later in 2009 that Jeff Farrer had already done TEM analysis, identified Fe2O3 with it, but apparently had no conclusions on the aluminium-content (i.e. the Kaolin, if he happened to look at "type a-d" chips.


Contrary to what they wrote in the paper, the FTIR data was never published, neither was the TEM data.

Frank Legge, one of the co-authors, wrote recently (about early march, I think) on 911Blogger that he wanted to ask Jones about both data sets. No reply yet.

AE911Twoof wrote in their March-newsletter that they would have a critique of Millette's preliminary report in the April newsletter. But there wasn't any such critique.



Christopher7, I believe you have personal contacts to some of the authors of Harrit e.al.
Would you be so kind as to get a comment from them on
  • why the FTIR data that they said they already HAD done was never published
  • why the TEM data was never published
  • why the critique of Millette has not been included in the newsletter
  • and if they would at least dump some raw data of the FTIR and TEM analysis somewhere. Perhaps Ryan and Legge could accomodate it in their Journal of 911 Studies?

Thanks. That would really help.
Anyway, it's not his style to address questions to others. That courtesy that Chris Mohr has with the people in this forum does not apply to him. He's only on the demanding side, demanding rights without committing to obligations. Ironic the avatar he chose.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 07:53 AM   #4531
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Yes, but that's not the likely mechanism. Tipping over is one way to get over-g but in WTC7 and in the crane example, it's one part of the system pulling another.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 08:30 AM   #4532
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Yes, but that's not the likely mechanism. Tipping over is one way to get over-g but in WTC7 and in the crane example, it's one part of the system pulling another.
Or a combination of both.
Animal 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 8th May 2012, 08:51 AM   #4533
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,578
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Yes, but that's not the likely mechanism. Tipping over is one way to get over-g but in WTC7 and in the crane example, it's one part of the system pulling another.
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Or a combination of both.
I always enjoy the elegant simplicity of that video clip demonstration but it is not a direct analogy to WTC7. You need to be able to translate the principles to the more complex situation of what probably happened at WTC7.

And C7 refuses to understand the "free body" physics - whether his refusal is based on genuine doesn't understand or is simply mendacity. It has been explained for him numerous times so he cannot honestly claim ignorance.
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 8th May 2012, 11:30 AM   #4534
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite ...
No.

While aluminium is the most usual reducing metal in many thermites, silicon is NOT. Conceivably, silicon dioxide (SiO2) - not silicon - can be the metal oxide in a thermite mix with Al or Mg, but it has properties that run counter to what Harrit e.al. needs to be, or is, achieved by nano-thermite: Because SiO2 has a meltting point even higher than that of Fe2O3, and has an energy density that's only 70% that of normal Fe-Al-thermite, it is very hard to ignite, it slows other thermite reaction down when mixed, and won't self-sustain unless a booster is added in significant amounts, such as sulfur and more Al, or potassium chlorate, none of which was found to present anywhere in sufficient amounts, or at all. So it can be definitely ruled out that silicon played any role at all in that alleged "nano-thermite".
Chris7, you are engaging in wishful thinking, and you are propagating lies invented by the high priests of woo SE Jones.
Please refer to http://www.amazingrust.com/Experimen...mite.html#SiO2 if you don't believe me.

Secondly, Millette has shown unequivocally that there was NO ALUMINIUM in the chips that are equal to chips (a)-(d) in the Harrit paper - a conclusion that AE911Truth, Kevin Ryan, Debunking the Debunkers and Chris Sarns keep lying about, by totally ignoring this key conclusion.


Thirdly, the data in Harrit e.al., specifically Fig 10, shows clearly for all with eyes to see that Si and Al are bound to each other. There is not a mix of Al and Si, or Al and SiO2, there is clearly a chemical compound that contains BOTH Al and Si, and again, those with eyes to see, can clearly see that the distribution of Al and Si is the same as the distribution of those plates and stacks that look exactly like clay - which is a common word for aluminium silicate.


Why am I writing this? Chris7 has been informed of all these facts before, but refuses to let his brain be infected with facts.
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 Back to Top
Old 8th May 2012, 12:09 PM   #4535
WTC Dust
Illuminator
 
WTC Dust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,529
Frederick Henry-Couannier heated up the chips from samples given to him from the Jones group. He found zero evidence of thermite, after many attempts at provoking the thermite reaction. His conclusion was that the iron oxide chips were merely rust.

I say rusty chips are quite strange and need explanation, but at least we don't have to keep laboring under the false idea that they were unexploded thermite.

Finding rust chips and concluding thermite is like finding egg shells and concluding that a quiche Lorraine had just been baked.



Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns
__________________
The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.
WTC Dust 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 8th May 2012, 12:22 PM   #4536
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Quote:
I say rusty chips are quite strange and need explanation
Really? You can't figure out how steel got rust on it?
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 12:16 AM   #4537
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.
Not surprising since this rebuttal stuff is a big charade.
Clayton Moore 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 9th May 2012, 12:20 AM   #4538
Mudcat
Man of a Thousand Memes
 
Mudcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 6,474
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Really? You can't figure out how steel got rust on it?
What is iron oxide, Alex?

Dusty, even stainless steal (which the structural steel most certainly was not) will get rust transferred onto it from contact contamination from metals less resistant to corrosion.

But in the case of the structural support steel used in the WTC would have been made of standard corrosion resistant steel. However we are talking about buildings that were several decades old so it's structural members would have definitely had some corrosion on it, especially if has not been replaced.
__________________
"There is no special treatment for guns." ~WildCat, confirmed gun owner.

Last edited by Mudcat; 9th May 2012 at 12:27 AM.
Mudcat 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 9th May 2012, 01:32 AM   #4539
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No.

While aluminium is the most usual reducing metal in many thermites, silicon is NOT. Conceivably, silicon dioxide (SiO2) - not silicon - can be the metal oxide in a thermite mix with Al or Mg, but it has properties that run counter to what Harrit e.al. needs to be, or is, achieved by nano-thermite: Because SiO2 has a meltting point even higher than that of Fe2O3, and has an energy density that's only 70% that of normal Fe-Al-thermite, it is very hard to ignite, it slows other thermite reaction down when mixed, and won't self-sustain unless a booster is added in significant amounts, such as sulfur and more Al, or potassium chlorate, none of which was found to present anywhere in sufficient amounts, or at all. So it can be definitely ruled out that silicon played any role at all in that alleged "nano-thermite".
We have recently expanded this epoxide addition method to the synthesis of Fe2O3-SiO2 nanocomposites containing up to 60 wt% SiO2.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf

Quote:
Secondly, Millette has shown unequivocally that there was NO ALUMINIUM in the chips that are equal to chips (a)-(d)
The method he used did not separate the Al and the Si. That does not prove they are chemically bound, it only proves that method did not separate them. Harrit got them to separate proving they were not chemically bound.

Quote:
in the Harrit paper - a conclusion that AE911Truth, Kevin Ryan, Debunking the Debunkers and Chris Sarns keep lying about, by totally ignoring this key conclusion.
Please return your accusation of lying to that dark recess from whence it came.

Quote:
Thirdly, the data in Harrit e.al., specifically Fig 10, shows clearly for all with eyes to see that Si and Al are bound to each other. There is not a mix of Al and Si, or Al and SiO2, there is clearly a chemical compound that contains BOTH Al and Si, and again, those with eyes to see, can clearly see that the distribution of Al and Si is the same as the distribution of those plates and stacks that look exactly like clay - which is a common word for aluminium silicate.
I can see that they are similar but different.



Do you believe that clay ignites at 430oC, produces an energy release spike and produces iron spheres?

Christopher7 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 9th May 2012, 01:53 AM   #4540
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by C7
A structure cannot pull itself down. This whole faster than FFA canard is JREF claptrap.
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
If the inside goes first, what does it do to the outside?
I have said that the interior columns could momentarily pull the exterior columns down at faster than FFA but only for an instant. After that they would still be connected and falling together at FFA.

The "leverage" claptrap requires that the interior columns meet resistance. That would slow the fall, not increase it. There is no evidence or data that the "leverage" effect could have taken place in WTC 7. It's just straw grasping.

People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.
Christopher7 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 9th May 2012, 03:03 AM   #4541
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.
There is no rational basis upon which any reasonable person could accept your assertion here. It is self-rebutting.

If the measurement error is large enough to preclude the conclusion that the rate of acceleration varied, it is also large enough to preclude the conclusion that it was constant, based on the data alone. (I don't think anyone here would be surprised that your belief in "FFA" isn't rooted in data analysis.)

Not that you have demonstrated anything about the measurement error one way or another. Your irrational conclusion is based on an unsupported premise.
MarkLindeman 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 9th May 2012, 03:09 AM   #4542
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
Frederick Henry-Couannier heated up the chips from samples given to him from the Jones group. He found zero evidence of thermite, after many attempts at provoking the thermite reaction. His conclusion was that the iron oxide chips were merely rust.
Henry-Couannier got his sample not from the Jones group, he got it directly from the finder. Don't remember though if the source was the same as one of Jones's.

He found only 1 red-gray chip in his sample and didn't get a meaningful reaction out of it. Since Harrit e.al. descibed at least 6 different kinds of red-gray chips, Henry-Couannier's sample is pretty meaningless from the get-go.

Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
I say rusty chips are quite strange and need explanation, but at least we don't have to keep laboring under the false idea that they were unexploded thermite.
Quite the contrary. Look around you now. Do you see any metal surfaces in your vicinity? Doesn't matter if stainless steel, aluminium, structural steel (a nail, perhaps), brass, ... Unless it's gold or platinum, what you really see is a surface entirely comprised of oxidized metal. Especially in the case of non-stainless steel: Even if it looks metallic, the top 50-150 micrometers or so are layers of decreasingly oxidized iron: Fe2O3 on top, lots of Fe3O4 (magnetite) beneath, then FeO before you reach a depth where most / all of the iron atoms are free.

In short: "Rust" is the natural state for surface iron to be in.

Yes, Henry-Couannier found "rust" - the gray layer is iron oxide.
The red layer is not, it is still largely organic.

Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
Finding rust chips and concluding thermite is like finding egg shells and concluding that a quiche Lorraine had just been baked.
I like that
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 Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 04:22 AM   #4543
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
I am stunned by the profound depth of C7's ... urrrrr ... "alternative perception of reality".

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
We have recently expanded this epoxide addition method to the synthesis of Fe2O3-SiO2 nanocomposites containing up to 60 wt% SiO2.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf
HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
This is really funny! Thanks for linking that paper: It proves exactly what I said in the post you replied to, where I said:
"silicon dioxide ... has properties that run counter to what Harrit e.al. needs to be, or is, achieved by nano-thermite: ... it is very hard to ignite, it slows other thermite reaction down when mixed ..."

The proof is in Figure 2 of the linked paper, which clearly shows two things:
  • Combustion velocity decreases dramatically the more SiO2 you mix in (note the logarithmic scale! On a linear scale, you'd see much more clearly just HOW extreme the decrease is. For example, going from "ordinary" Fe2O3-only nanothermite to a mix with 20% SiO2 to 80%Fe2O3 decreases reaction velocity by a factor of more than 200! Going from 20% to 40% decreases it by a further factor of roughly 10. It appears that a nanothermite with more than 60% silica oxidizer does not react at all!)
  • The velocity depression is more pronounced for the nano-material than for the regular micro-material: all nano-mixes with SiO2 react slower than the corresponding mico-mixes
You see, adding SiO2 really only hinders the thermite reaction. I now learned why:
Quote:
This trend is not surprising because the thermal properties of SiO2 are more insulative than the highly conductive thermal properties of Fe2O3. For example, the thermal conductivity for Fe2O3 is 20.0 W/m K and for SiO2 is 1.38 W/m K [12]. The presence of SiO2 hinders flame propagation by behaving as a thermal heat sink and resisting the transport of heat through the mixture, thereby reducing the velocity. Although SiO2 contributes to the chemical energy generated, adding SiO2 reduces the overall speed of the reaction by inhibiting thermal transport and reducing the combustion temperature.
The most important piece of data is however found on the front page:
Quote:
March 25, 2005



Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The method he used did not separate the Al and the Si. That does not prove they are chemically bound, it only proves that method did not separate them. Harrit got them to separate proving they were not chemically bound.
When I first read this, I was flabbergasted, mouth literally dropped open, then I burst in loud laughter.

Could this be true? It reads not so much as if you don't understand chemistry and more like you don't even know what chemistry is!

But perhaps you simply did not read and understand, or remember, what Millette wrote in his preliminary report.

To remind you: He found kaolin (aluminium silicate) using unequivocal and competent methods, namely FTIR and TEM-SAED in conjunction with SEM and TEM microscopy and XEDS spectroscopy. He found no traces of elemental Al with these methods.

Kaolin is a mineral of a chemical compound with the sum formula Al2Si2(OH)5O4.

A chemical compound. If you don't know what a chemical compound is, please look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
A chemical compound is a pure chemical substance consisting of two or more different chemical elements that can be separated into simpler substances by chemical reactions. Chemical compounds have a unique and defined chemical structure; they consist of a fixed ratio of atoms[3] that are held together in a defined spatial arrangement by chemical bonds.
(my bolding and italics)

When Farrer or Jones (not Harrit) "separated" Al in one sample, they didn't do so by chemical reaction. They tried a physical reaction (solution), but tried it on a completely different kind of material than that which we are talking about: The MEK-soaked chip in the Harrit paper is very different from chips (a)-(d): The latter clearly contain kaolin, the former quite apparently does not. The former clearly contains calcium, zinc, magnesium and sulfur, the latter clearly does not. The former very likely is Tnemec red, the latter quite likely is LaClede primer.

Please follow the links and acknowledge verbosely that you have now learned that
A) There were several different kinds of chips in Jones's samples
B) There were several different kinds of primer paints on WTC steels
so that next time you try to pass off a suggestion that chips (a)-(d) and the MEK-soaked chip are the same can clearly be recognized as a bold-faced lie.

Alternatively, acknowldge that you do not understand this lesson I am giving you, and stop participating in this debate until you do.


To directly address the bizarrely stupid comment you made: Millette did not separate Al from Si because he already had proven that they are part of chemical compound that, by definition, cannot be separated by non-chemical processes such as soaking. Al and Si have been PROVEN to be chemically bound when Millette named the chemical compound (kaolin) that they are bound in.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Please return your accusation of lying to that dark recess from whence it came.
The March 2012 AE911Truth newsletter clearly lies about Millette's conclusions. This is a clear as day.

As for anyone going along with these lies, there are only two possibilities: They are intellectually incapable of understanding why these lies are wrong (deluded or too stupid), or they consciously perpetuate the lie.

Your choice then: Do you want me to assume you are a liar, a lunatic, or an idiot? There is no other possibility. Except to admit that Millette clearly showed there is no aluminium in these chips of type "(a)-(d)", and hence zero thermite.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I can see that they are similar but different.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/9...g10alandsi.jpg
One purple, the other blue. The Si-map is slightly noisier, otherwise the correlation is PERFECT, and it takes an astounding level of self-delusion or dishonesty not to see that extremely obvious fact.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Do you believe that clay ignites at 430oC, produces an energy release spike and produces iron spheres?

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3113/fig20.jpg
Don't play that STUPID or DISHONEST game with us!



You KNOW very well that NOBODY thinks clay ignites anywhere! You KNOW very well that the red layer is MOSTLY organic matrix., You SHOULD know very well that solid organic substances are prone to ignite at such temperatures. And surely you KNOW very well that every SANE and HONEST person claims that it is the ORGANIC matrix that must be burning there, NOT the minerals?

So why do you ask such a CRAP question?? Are you consciously trying to give the Twoof Movement an even worse reputation than it already has by playing such dumb-dirty tricks? Are you a disinfo shill?
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 Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 04:31 AM   #4544
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,058
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I have said that the interior columns could momentarily pull the exterior columns down at faster than FFA but only for an instant. After that they would still be connected and falling together at FFA.

The "leverage" claptrap requires that the interior columns meet resistance. That would slow the fall, not increase it. There is no evidence or data that the "leverage" effect could have taken place in WTC 7. It's just straw grasping.

People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.
Why would it only be for an instant? And why would it also NOT be able to pull the exterior at -g if it pulls with the same force as opposing resistance?

Also, why do you keep clinging to freefall without putting forth anything substantial to disprove femr2?

Here's another factor for you: what happens with the interior rubble when it hits the ground level? Could it also affect the exterior columns?

So far I see your case seems to be a lot of "it must be so" assertions. And you STILL haven't done anything that show's evidence of CD, beyond your attempts at "disproving NIST".

ETA: you're not doing engineering analysis, you're doing Intelligent Design of Destruction
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 9th May 2012 at 04:42 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 07:36 AM   #4545
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
People who understand that the data points they themselves measured are not exact enough because their methods were poor, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people truthers here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not could not be definitely shown if it was vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, the data only shows that in average it was falling at FFA.
Ftfy.
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 Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 07:46 AM   #4546
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Apparently obfuscation is the new debunk.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 07:48 AM   #4547
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
...
Don't play that STUPID or DISHONEST game with us!



You KNOW very well that NOBODY thinks clay ignites anywhere! You KNOW very well that the red layer is MOSTLY organic matrix., You SHOULD know very well that solid organic substances are prone to ignite at such temperatures. And surely you KNOW very well that every SANE and HONEST person claims that it is the ORGANIC matrix that must be burning there, NOT the minerals?

So why do you ask such a CRAP question?? Are you consciously trying to give the Twoof Movement an even worse reputation than it already has by playing such dumb-dirty tricks? Are you a disinfo shill?
Wow. Sarns managed to troll Oys into actual anger. He'll doubtless receive a bonus this month at Troll HQ for that.
000063 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 9th May 2012, 07:51 AM   #4548
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Apparently obfuscation is the new debunk.

MM
Would you care to elaborate or explain instead of swooping in with generic one-liners that don't actually address anything?

That's rhetorical; of course not.
000063 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 9th May 2012, 08:11 AM   #4549
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,661
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Apparently obfuscation is the new debunk.
I can see how technical arguments look like obfuscation to you.
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 Back to Top
Old 9th May 2012, 08:49 AM   #4550
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Yep, it's the same trick Ergo tries; he can't understand the argument, so he just declares it nonsense or says that so-and-so clearly doesn't understand what's under discussion. And I've never seen him go into any more detail.
000063 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 10th May 2012, 06:17 AM   #4551
femr2
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,859
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.
1) Any data derived from video (*should) relate to a single point on the building, not the "upper part of WTC7".

* Neither NIST nor Chandler bothered to ensure their data actually related to a single specific point on the facade with any accuracy.

2) The acceleration profile is slightly different for every point on the facade, of course.

3) The "falling upper part of WTC7" was most certainly not falling AT FFA for any measurable period of time. There's a second or so that could be said to be approx. FFA, for the point traced above (NW Corner).

I've derived what should be viewed as the most accurate acceleration profiles for various points upon the WTC7 facade during descent, with the following fairly consistent results...



A critical point of note: Maximum acceleration occurs before the point (on the roofline, NW corner) has descended about 10ft. From that point on, the general trend is reduction in acceleration.

A trivial point of note: The chance of anything descending at exactly FFA for any sustained period of time is zero, outside of a lab.
femr2 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 10th May 2012, 07:20 AM   #4552
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
"I have said that the interior columns could momentarily pull the exterior columns down at faster than FFA but only for an instant. After that they would still be connected and falling together at FFA.

The "leverage" claptrap requires that the interior columns meet resistance. That would slow the fall, not increase it. There is no evidence or data that the "leverage" effect could have taken place in WTC 7. It's just straw grasping.

People who understand that the data points are not exact, like NIST, Chandler and most everyone but the people here, know that the falling upper part of WTC 7 was not vacillating between slightly faster than and slightly slower than FFA, it was falling at FFA.
"
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
"1) Any data derived from video (*should) relate to a single point on the building, not the "upper part of WTC7".

* Neither NIST nor Chandler bothered to ensure their data actually related to a single specific point on the facade with any accuracy.

2) The acceleration profile is slightly different for every point on the facade, of course.

3) The "falling upper part of WTC7" was most certainly not falling AT FFA for any measurable period of time. There's a second or so that could be said to be approx. FFA, for the point traced above (NW Corner).

I've derived what should be viewed as the most accurate acceleration profiles for various points upon the WTC7 facade during descent, with the following fairly consistent results...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/447669743.png

A critical point of note: Maximum acceleration occurs before the point (on the roofline, NW corner) has descended about 10ft. From that point on, the general trend is reduction in acceleration.

A trivial point of note: The chance of anything descending at exactly FFA for any sustained period of time is zero, outside of a lab.
"
Sounds like fractional quibbling to me.

Of course time and motion data obtained from the video reference tape could never provide
the precision of data that a laboratory-designed experiment would provide.

And as much as I admire much of FEMR's work, his point #2 seems to contradict his starting point, #1.

The number of visual and numerical matching points to a commercial CD, are far too many to dismiss the significance of FFA just because we can't generate a laboratory-precise response curve.

What would be more useful, is more time and motion analysis of as many CDs as possible.

The current results from the NIST, and David Chandler, show a period of 'real world' FFA.

IMHO, arguing over insignificant percentages is a time-wasting task suited to corporate lawyers.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th May 2012, 07:45 AM   #4553
MarkLindeman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 493
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
IMHO, arguing over insignificant percentages is a time-wasting task suited to corporate lawyers.
If you managed to convince C7 that he is "arguing over insignificant percentages," you might actually contribute to the discussion. Good luck with that.

ETA: femr2's points 1 and 2 are both mutually consistent and very much on point. (1) If one isn't comparing a single point all the way down, the analysis is apples-to-oranges. (2) C7's compulsion to generalize about "the falling upper part of WTC 7" is problematic because one cannot assume that the entire "upper part" is descending at the same velocity at any point in time.

Last edited by MarkLindeman; 10th May 2012 at 07:48 AM.
MarkLindeman 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 10th May 2012, 08:04 AM   #4554
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
1) Any data derived from video (*should) relate to a single point on the building, not the "upper part of WTC7".

* Neither NIST nor Chandler bothered to ensure their data actually related to a single specific point on the facade with any accuracy.

2) The acceleration profile is slightly different for every point on the facade, of course.

3) The "falling upper part of WTC7" was most certainly not falling AT FFA for any measurable period of time. There's a second or so that could be said to be approx. FFA, for the point traced above (NW Corner).

I've derived what should be viewed as the most accurate acceleration profiles for various points upon the WTC7 facade during descent, with the following fairly consistent results...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/447669743.png

A critical point of note: Maximum acceleration occurs before the point (on the roofline, NW corner) has descended about 10ft. From that point on, the general trend is reduction in acceleration.

A trivial point of note: The chance of anything descending at exactly FFA for any sustained period of time is zero, outside of a lab.
NIST had all the king's scientists, engineers, computers, time, and data. And they were unable to put together a legible explanation for the alleged collapses and the Pentagon attack. Checkmate, set and match.
Clayton Moore 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 10th May 2012, 08:13 AM   #4555
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
NIST had all the king's scientists, engineers, computers, time, and data. And they were unable to put together a legible explanation for the alleged collapses and the Pentagon attack. Checkmate, set and match.
And yet they still have a better explanation than you do.
thedopefishlives 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 10th May 2012, 08:45 AM   #4556
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,193
Has this been noticed and debated here or anywhere yet?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ch...ng-7-t605.html

Last december, achimspok showed some own tracing and it looks like some points went from 0 to g faster than femr2, NIST or Chandler have it.

I didn't study his post, but it seems like he distinguished and eliminated early horizontal movement and found that some of the apparent early vertical movement isn't really going down.

For some reason, no one ever picked this up at the911forum.

Last edited by Oystein; 10th May 2012 at 08:50 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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2012, 09:02 AM   #4557
Ivan Kminek
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Mr. Millette,

As a layman I understand the basics. When heated to 430oC, the chip ignited and there was a sudden release of energy. The result was iron microspheres.

There are also iron microspheres attached to some of the chips. How do you explain this if not from a thermitic reaction?

If the red/gray chip produces iron microspheres in a sudden release of energy then there was a thermitic reaction. Do you know of another explanation?

Does heating a [any] primer chip to 430oC produce this result?

This is a simple test that should have been replicated for your paper to be a valid replication of the Harrit et al analysis. By not doing this test you have only demonstrated that you avoided the critical test that initiates a thermitic reaction.

The same is true for the aluminum.

Aluminum and silicon are in nano-thermite and kaolin. You are assuming the latter is based on the analysis that could not get them to separate. But this does not necessarily mean that they are chemically bound together. Harrit managed to get them to separate and you should do the same test to see if you get the same results. You cannot do a different test and say there was no separation so it's not thermite.

Regards

Chris Sarns
Chris7: I'm not going to disprove your strange ideas like that "sudden release of energy" was observed when heating red-gray chips in DSC device in Bentham paper. If you think that release of energy from very tiny chip during 5 to 10 minutes (!!!) is "sudden" and DSC peaks in Fig. 19 and 29 are "narrow", this is your personal problem

Instead, I have some simple questions:
As you probably know, specifications of two red primer paints for protection of WTC construction steel were found in corresponding NIST reports, namely of Tnemec primer (for perimeter columns) and of Laclede primer (for floor trusses).
- Do you agree that chips of these two massively used red paints (probably attached to rusted steel in many cases) must be present in WTC dust? (Remember that we estimated the total mass of these paints to be of several tens of tons).
- If you agree, don't you think that at least some substantial portion of red chips found in the dust by both Harrit and Millette should be particles of these two paints?

(Thank you for your response. Btw, if I remember correctly, you are/were carpenter, so you are/were in everyday contact with polymers in glues, adhesives, sealants, even paints etc. Don't you think that such polymers (e.g. as binders in primer paints) burn in air (with distinct exothermic effect)?

Last edited by Ivan Kminek; 10th May 2012 at 09:45 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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2012, 09:37 AM   #4558
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by WTC Dust View Post
Frederick Henry-Couannier heated up the chips from samples given to him from the Jones group. He found zero evidence of thermite, after many attempts at provoking the thermite reaction. His conclusion was that the iron oxide chips were merely rust.

I say rusty chips are quite strange and need explanation, but at least we don't have to keep laboring under the false idea that they were unexploded thermite.

Finding rust chips and concluding thermite is like finding egg shells and concluding that a quiche Lorraine had just been baked.

we have thousands of tons of steel that has been standing for 30 years in sea air and you find rust "strange"??????
sheeplesnshills 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 10th May 2012, 09:45 AM   #4559
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,965
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
That is not the real accleration, it is smoothed data. But it fits with the thread, Gage is not a real spreader of truth, he a smoothed liar.

Why does NIST need this?
Originally Posted by femr2 View Post
1) Any data derived from video (*should) relate to a single point on the building, not the "upper part of WTC7".

* Neither NIST nor Chandler bothered to ensure their data actually related to a single specific point on the facade with any accuracy.

...
You never make a case of why. With no real objective, the why becomes something you think they need, not based on investigating the collapse, but some Monk like need to have the "best" data according to you and Major Tom in your quest to back in CD.

Gage is making a living selling woo as he ignores the best data, and rakes in the best money.

As some 911 truth cult members in their quest for the best data attack NIST, they never read the goals for NIST, and they never set their own goals. They are wasting their time, when they should be producing their own work and publishing it.

..., large parts of the building began falling to earth 10 seconds before this smoothed graph. Why not measure that acceleration? Your study of one point becomes ridiculous waste of time since that has nothing to do with the collapse. The failure in WTC 7 began well before the best data you have.

Maybe Gage can give you a grant to study more points.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th May 2012, 11:25 AM   #4560
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
BTW I just got a response from another former 9/11 Truth guy who now believes in natural collapse. He thanked me for my work and linked to his own video on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHlG8...&feature=email
This may have already been played out on JREF on some other thread.
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post 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 06:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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.