• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?

In another oddity:
establish the non production of molten metal/iron from this material during DSC exposure to 400 - 600 Centigrade as well as the exotherm/endotherm character of the primer breakdown
.
So its to establish exo/endothermic property but forget establishing production/nonproduction of molten metal? Experimenter bias on display?

If primer isn't applied to, then scraped off of, a metal surface, what is any of this supposed to prove anyway?
 
I did notice you didn't actually refute my points.

Why is it when people ask you to support your view you can't. Could it be because you have no idea what your talking about?

I'm prepared to back up everything I've said (and have to date). I'm waiting for you to step up. Can't, can you?
 
Mark Basile, is a dolt on Chemical Engineering. How can he do a rational study when he can't read for comprehension and make sup lies about corroded steel. Is he speading lies on purpos, or is he an idiot. 911 truth, 13 years of BS, and lies.

Mark Basile:
Well I think there are some indications of thermitic reaction, potentially. There was a report done by a professor down at WPI. They have a big fire safety group - I think he's involved in that down there - where one of the samples from World Trade Center 7 was sent to him because it did have some uh... funny appearances. There was evidently something very strange that happened to it and uh.. There was some sulfidation. So basically, sections of this steel had been turned molten and had very high sulfur contents in them, along with the iron and the melted steel and so on, so. That's a possible other indicator that there was thermite here, because a lot of times, you know, people who are following this, they hear the term thermite, thermate, and so on. If you integrate sulfur into the thermite mixture you get what's called "thermate" and the reason that's done is, uhm... just like you can alloy steel with say carbon or nickel or chromium to make different, you know, whatevers, you can allow steel with sulphur, and when you do that it actually lowers its melting point significantly so, that's the reason it's used in building demolition type thermites specifically, or for a... further applications too, you know, for destroying equipment, you know like soldiers use this material when they're backing away from equipment and they need to destroy say a tank, but they can't take it with them so the enemy can't use it... They'll drop little thermite hand grenades into their equipment to basically melt through the material and destroy the equipment.

This is classic, a 911 truth expert who can't understand the Appendix C report.

He is suppose to be a Chemical Engineer? He can't comprehend the paper proves it was corrosion if fire up to 1000 C, and not thermite/thermate.


Basile can't read a report and understand it was corrosion not thermate.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Is Basile an idiot, or a liar for 911 truth.
How can a someone who makes up lies about a report he can't understand do a study on dust? Will Basile do like Jones and Harrit and make up a conclusion?

I expect another fake conclusion, like Jones and Harrit. The faith based followers of 911 truth will fall for the fake conclusion, ignoring the fact there is no thermite damage to any WTC steel. The followers of 911 truth don't understand science, falling for lies from nuts in 911 truth.

Basile fails to understand FEMA's Appendix C, he can't do a valid study.
 
Last edited:
Using an independent lab that has no idea that the dust is from the WTC or from 9/11

And then start telling them what to do.

:D
 
Who will interpret the results? The independent lab or Basile et al?

If the latter, we already know that the data in the ATM paper does not support their conclusions.
 
I did notice you didn't actually refute my points.

Why is it when people ask you to support your view you can't.

Could it be because you have no idea what your talking about?

I'm prepared to back up everything I've said (and have to date).

I'm waiting for you to step up.

Can't, can you?


You have created an irrefutable argument by making sure it is devoid of any science points.

Could it be because you are the one who has no idea what they are talking about?

I've read through all your posts in this thread and you keep trying to sell 'sizzle' while claiming it is steak.

Maybe if you attempted to illustrate how the process Mark Basile is following is not scientifically valid as it relates to his stated goals...past or present?

Georgio has started a new thread where you can reveal to the world why you feel Mark Basile's current research is so pointless;

Is Mark Basile's WTC Dust Study Pointless?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=280539

Show us that Mark Basile is "following a road that doesn't lead to Rome."

Unlike Jim Millette who never got there, stopping his research once he decided the road "looked right."
 
Millette found clay in the dust. Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was, they tested to fool a fringe few who can't think for themselves.

After running test on dust, Jones and Harrit found the heat energy in the dust did not match thermite, so they made up an excuse, and lied, saying they had thermite, and nuts in 911 truth agree.

Harrit and Jones run a DSC which does not match thermite, and say thermite.

Looks like 911 truth papers end with a false conclusion with proof not found in the paper - Millette explains what is in the dust, 911 truth cult members ignore it, out of ignorance.

The real proof the Jones/Harrit fake paper is nonsense; 13 years and nothing. Plus, there was no steel damaged from planted thermite, no planted thermite. A fantasy of Jones based on zero evidence, thermite.

Basile claims that steel at the WTC was damaged by thermite. He implies the steel in Appendix C is thermite damage. It is fire damage done at 1000C or less in fire. The paper talks of eutectic, and rules out thermite due to the damage done took place at or below 1000 C. Basile has no clue this rules out thermite, and spreads fantasy.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
Why is the entire 911 truth movement too lazy to get help with this report. 911 truth says this steel melted, and remain clueless idiots in a movement of lies mocking the murder of thousands.

What will 911 truth do about their fake studies?
Nothing

Basile acts like a paranoid conspiracy theorist who has no clue on 911. What is his story on Flight 77, and Flight 93.

With no damage to steel at the WTC from thermite, his study is finished now. It will be funny if he lies and claims he found thermite.
 
Georgio has started a new thread where you can reveal to the world why you feel Mark Basile's current research is so pointless;

I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. What I said is the update on progress for the study shows no resemblance to the original proposal and is also pointless.

You ignored that naturally.

Tell us, were the known paint chips he's testing now separated using the same criteria specified in the proposal?

The topic here is not the proposed study, just the update work. Answer this first question then I'll explain (as if I should have to) why it's pointless.
 
Last edited:
I see reading comprehension is not one of your strong suits. What I said is the update on progress for the study shows no resemblance to the original proposal and is also pointless.

You ignored that naturally.

Tell us, were the known paint chips he's testing now separated using the same criteria specified in the proposal?

The topic here is not the proposed study, just the update work. Answer this first question then I'll explain (as if I should have to) why it's pointless.

Oh I see.

You are under the impression that a brief update about the progress on the original proposal should already encompass results from everything listed in that proposal.

Maybe you need help understanding what an update means?

This sounds very much like the naive complaint that Dr. Harrit et al did not include every scrap of data from their research in the finished 2009 Bentham paper.

I suggest your complaint is very premature since we are talking about a simple "update" and not the completed report.
 
Oh I see.

You are under the impression that a brief update about the progress on the original proposal should already encompass results from everything listed in that proposal.

Maybe you need help understanding what an update means?

Why test paint chips that you have not separated using a method used in either study? You think that's useful?

Maybe they should test dog crap too, just to make sure it doesn't match.
 
Why test paint chips that you have not separated using a method used in either study? You think that's useful?

Maybe they should test dog crap too, just to make sure it doesn't match.

Dog crap has more heat energy than thermite. BS beats the BS of thermite.
 
Beachnut, you are wrong when you say that "Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was." Jeff Farrer did TEM and Kevin Ryan did FTIR. Results of these materials characterization tests were never released. Steven Jones then went on to do a THIRD test, as he wrote here: “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.”

So you see Beachnut, Jones/Harrit/Ryan/Farrer did the tests all right, they just didn't like the results and never published them! Gotta stay accurate about these things ya know...
 
Last edited:
Beachnut, you are wrong when you say that "Jones and Harritt did no test find out what the dust was." ...
They said they found thermite, implied thermite caused the WTC collapses. They were wrong, they did no test to find out what the dust was, they did tests to fake finding thermite.
 
Beachnut my point is that they DID at least three tests and never included the results of those tests in the 2009 paper! And as you say, the tests they DID release like DSC do NOT provide evidence of thermite. We agree, I'm just saying it's even worse than you said.
 
You would think "truthers" (not being blind sheep) would wonder what happened to the $1000 donated to the Bassile investigation. Nope, not a concern.

My guess based on facts in AE's tax files. Gage took over this fund-raiser after ANETA spent most of the money and he was un-willing to also suck-up a donation of $1000 that was never there. ANETA after the "physics challenge" donated the money to themselves. My guess, Mark Bassile asked AENTA for money to start his study and they don't have it. Gage to the rescue, he won't fund a study but, he will make sure no one cares. He will find volunteers to do pointless tests he knows will keep this dream alive.
 
Last edited:
Beachnut my point is that they DID at least three tests and never included the results of those tests in the 2009 paper! And as you say, the tests they DID release like DSC do NOT provide evidence of thermite. We agree, I'm just saying it's even worse than you said.

Ziggy is watching, and we need to give him better quote-mining gems. He is mainly a cut and paste google U grad, and we need to help him build a legacy of woo.

I can't believe 911 truth nuts are doing a study of something that never happened on 911, and people like ziggy start a blog based on delusional claptrap. At least this fraud 911 truth followers fall for can be a free experience; unless they donate 5k to Gage's endless scam.
 

Back
Top Bottom