JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[quicknthedead]

How about an honesty check, quick? Last I checked, your absurd "seismic" paper is still online at the JONES, although you're well aware that it's completely wrong.

Please explain why that is.

ETA: I bumped the thread for you. Proceed with your explanation.

You are entitled to your opinion, Mark, and I to mine.
I believe you are wrong and the paper is right.
But this is not the topic here so we will have to let it go at that.

 

[Gravy]

From the report, pg 10:

"The report?" What report, [Edit: I see you mean the JONES report, and it's page 9, not 10] and where are higher local temperatures ruled out?

You are entitled to your opinion, Mark, and I to mine.
I believe you are wrong and the paper is right.
But this is not the topic here so we will have to let it go at that.

It's not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact that you have not responded to. In fact, you fled the thread as soon as it was pointed out. I will not "let it go at that" as long as you are posting here.

Clear enough, Craig Furlong? Then show that you're honest and do it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63740&page=10#394

 

[quicknthedead]

How about an honesty check, quick? Last I checked, your absurd "seismic" paper is still online at the JONES, although you're well aware that it's completely wrong.

Please explain why that is.

ETA: I bumped the thread for you. Proceed with your explanation.

You are entitled to your opinion, Mark, and I to mine.
I believe you are wrong and the paper is right.
But this is not the topic here so we will have to let it go at that.

 

[Sizzler]

Can someone please link me to an explanation as to how iron microspheres can be formed (during pre-collapse fire) with out actually reaching the temperature needed to melt iron.

Thanks.

ps. the search function for this site is bunk.

 

[quicknthedead]

Deleted due to computer multiple posts.

Sorry, guys. My computer kept getting stuck and would not post, so I deleted them more than once (or so I thought I had deleted them). Now I see it posted the same message multiple times.

Good day for me. Today my keyboard at work also busted.

Computers: It's a love / hate thing, you know.

 

[Gravy]

Can someone please link me to an explanation as to how iron microspheres can be formed (during pre-collapse fire) with out actually reaching the temperature needed to melt iron.

Thanks.

ps. the search function for this site is bunk.

I asked you if you will contact experts. You said you would wait for publication of the paper that was written 7 months ago.

So why are you still asking us this question? Are you not feeling well?

Sizzler, what are you going to do about this issue which is so important to you?

 

[Sizzler]

Mackey Wrote:

Um... Dr. Jones is claiming over 5% of the dust is in the form of iron microspheres?!?

Not very credible. This appears, at the very least, to be an undersampling error. It's not consistent with a real study, which found < 3.1% in any sample with 0.5% being typical, and that's all sources of iron, not just microspheres:

um....read the paper and you will see that they are not Jones' numbers. He sources it from a previous study done by a non-truther scientist.

Moreover, the RJ report provides provocative data regarding the abundance of observed iron-rich spheres. A WTC dust sample acquired at 130 liberty shows a "mean composition" of "Fe spheres" of 5.87% which is very high compared with "Fe spheres" found in ordinary building dust of only 0.04% (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Report, December, 2003). As the report notes, the WTC dust has unusual identifying characteristics-in particular, the WTC dust in this sample has nearly 150 times (5.87/0.04) the amount of iron-rich spheres as ordinary dust.

 

[Sizzler]

I asked you if you will contact experts. You said you would wait for publication of the paper that was written 7 months ago.

So why are you still asking us this question? Are you not feeling well?

Sizzler, what are you going to do about this issue which is so important to you?

Several people here said iron microspheres can be formed via temperatures much lower than the temperatures needed to melt iron.

So, I am asking kindly if someone could link me to the source.

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, what are you going to do about this issue which is so important to you?

obviously not talk to you about it.........

 

[Pardalis]

ps. the search function for this site is bunk.

Yeah, it's not very useful. I use Google, and type in JREF as one of the search words.

 

[Furcifer]

Duh, how can you take a picture of something that's evaoprated!

 

[Gravy]

Mackey Wrote:
um....read the paper and you will see that they are not Jones' numbers. He sources it from a previous study done by a non-truther scientist.

You realize that those samples are taken from a single building that was torn open by the south tower, don't you?

 

[Sizzler]

Yeah, it's not very useful. I use Google, and type in JREF as one of the search words.

great idea. thanks

 

[Gravy]

obviously not talk to you about it.........

There you go! You're learning when not to ask a tour guide a certain question about New York City! This is great progress.

Now, you know that iron microspheres were expected to be found in WTC dust, right?

So, Sizzler, for the umpteenth time I ask you: whom are you going to ask to learn more about this issue, which is of vital importance to you? Just a while ago you said you were going to wait until a certain paper is published. Now you've changed your mind.

So how are you going to learn about this? See if you can figure it out. I've tried to help with suggestions: review my earlier posts if necessary.

 

[beachnut]

Several people here said iron microspheres can be formed via temperatures much lower than the temperatures needed to melt iron.

So, I am asking kindly if someone could link me to the source.

most could find it themselves

 

[Sizzler]

There you go! You're learning when not to ask a tour guide a certain question about New York City! This is great progress.

Now, you know that iron microspheres were expected to be found in WTC dust, right?

No.

So, Sizzler, for the umpteenth time I ask you: whom are you going to ask to learn more about this issue, which is of vital importance to you? Just a while ago you said you were going to wait until a certain paper is published. Now you've changed your mind.

So how are you going to learn about this? See if you can figure it out. I've tried to help with suggestions: review my earlier posts if necessary.

The paper I posted suggests microspheres are not expected to be found naturally in the WTC fire.

No one as of yet has linked me to a source showing how microspheres could be formed in the WTC fires.

 

[beachnut]

The paper I posted suggests microspheres are not expected to be found naturally in the WTC fire.

No one as of yet has linked me to a source showing how microspheres could be formed in the WTC fires.

They can come from concrete, where have you been?

 

[Sizzler]

They can come from concrete, where have you been?

that is a start. do you have a link?

 

[Furcifer]

The paper I posted suggests microspheres are not expected to be found naturally in the WTC fire.

No one as of yet has linked me to a source showing how microspheres could be formed in the WTC fires.

I would if I thought you would actually read it and try to comprehend it. As the saying goes "You can lead a horse to water, but only talking to truthers will make you want to drink"

 

[Sizzler]

I would if I thought you would actually read it and try to comprehend it. As the saying goes "You can lead a horse to water, but only talking to truthers will make you want to drink"

thanks for nothing