JONES new paper:Microspheres and Temperatures

[Gravy]

Apollo has answered my questions Gravy. I side with his analysis. Is there a reason to go beyond?

Strange: a few days ago you were determined to know how such particles could be produced in an office building fire. Now you don't want to know. What changed, Sizzler?

 

[Sizzler]

Strange: a few days ago you were determined to know how such particles could be produced in an office building fire. Now you don't want to know. What changed, Sizzler?

Apollo's comments on Jones' paper. They are fair, and indirectly answer a lot of questions I had.

 

[Gravy]

Okay. Thanks.

 

[boloboffin]

Apollo. I think you have misquoted Jones here. Isn't he just giving a percent of those two particular spheres? He says, "larger" implying there are "smaller" spheres.

Thus the two largerst spheres are 0.04% of the dust content. It doesn't represent the entire iron content.

Or were you just goofing around?

More importantly, why isn't he giving full iron content percentages rather than just the "two largest one".

No, he's using the two largest to estimate total percentage of microspheres in the dust. 0.04% is Jones' estimation of the total percentage, and hence Apollo's amazement at the use of the term "abundance."

 

[Sizzler]

Okay. Thanks.

Your welcome Gravy. It is always nice to know you are concerned about my progress in this subject.


off-topic but related to Apollo's thread:

It looks like I "stumbled" into another point that I was previously right about. Remember the semantics of therm?te. Well my other point was therm?te could be a cause of sulfidation. Mackey said it wasn't possible, and CC said SO2 would have to undergo a reduction.

Apollo wrote:

On the question of sulfiding of steel, there appears to be the common misconception that this can only be caused by ELEMENTAL sulfur. This is simply not true! In fact, if you search the literature on sulfiding of steel you will find it is inevitably attributed to reactions of iron with SO2, SO3 or H2S. Even if we are talking about thermate, which has added sulfur, the violent OXIDIZING reaction on aluminum also oxidizes the sulfur to SO2 which then attacks any iron present forming an iron sulfide-iron oxide eutectic. (Source: Flatley and Birks, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, July 1971)

This actually confirms the validity of both of my points made in that thread.

Yes, I'm still bitter about that thread

 

[Sizzler]

No, he's using the two largest to estimate total percentage of microspheres in the dust. 0.04% is Jones' estimation of the total percentage, and hence Apollo's amazement at the use of the term "abundance."

The estimate of total percentage is the weight of the two largest spheres.

That is my point.

It is simply the percent that "the two largest spheres" represent. Period.

To suggest that 0.04% is anything but a "crude" measurement, based on the weight of just the twop largest spheres, is a misquote.

Apollo compared 0.04% to the use of the word "abundance" and points out how absurd it is. This is why I am not sure if he was joking or not.

0.04% is the percent of the two spheres, it is not an estimation of the entire sample beyond the use of the word "crude".

Jones shouldnt have done this. He should have replaced it with a real estimate of the percent.

 

[boloboffin]

Reading makes a country great!

"The mass of the two larger spheres (0.012 g) found in the sample can be used to provide a crude estimate of the fraction of iron-rich spheres in the dust: 0.012/32.1 = 0.04 %"

Not a fraction of the two largest, but a fraction of iron-rich spheres. All of them.

ETA: The mistake is Jones', not Apollo's.

 

[Gravy]

This actually confirms the validity of both of my points made in that thread.

It does? Um, so what happened to the aluminum?

 

[Gravy]

Reading makes a country great!

Some would say it's fundamental.

 

[Sizzler]

It does? Um, so what happened to the aluminum?

Maybe you should ask an expert Gravy.

 

[Gravy]

Maybe you should ask an expert Gravy.

No, I'm asking you. YOU said your point was confirmed. Now explain where the aluminum (and the barium, etc.) went. Proceed, Sizzler.

 

[Sizzler]

Reading makes a country great!



Not a fraction of the two largest, but a fraction of iron-rich spheres. All of them.

ETA: The mistake is Jones', not Apollo's.

crude is the key word. i would say it is a very crude method. lazy infact.

of the following statements, A is the best.

A. 0.04% represents the persent of the two largest spheres.

B. 0.04% represents the fraction of iron rich spheres.

that is my point. so, to use 0.04% and compare it to the word "abundance" and then call it absurd, is a misquote.

 

[Sizzler]

No, I'm asking you. YOU said your point was confirmed. Now explain where the aluminum (and the barium, etc.) went. Proceed, Sizzler.

Points confirmed:

1. thermite+sulfur can be called thermate

2. byproducts of therm?te reaction would cause sulfidation.

that is it.

where is the aluminum? good question. go ask an expert. maybe the absence of aluminum in sulfidized steel rules out therm?te, maybe it doesn't....what are you going to do Gravy?

 

[boloboffin]

crude is the key word. i would say it is a very crude method. lazy infact.

of the following statements, A is the best.

A. 0.04% represents the persent of the two largest spheres.

B. 0.04% represents the fraction of iron rich spheres.

that is my point. so, to use 0.04% and compare it to the word "abundance" and then call it absurd, is a misquote.

Let me try this one more time.

You pick A, Jones picked B, Apollo picked amazement.

Read Jones' words again. Until you understand that, you haven't got it.

 

[R.Mackey]

It looks like I "stumbled" into another point that I was previously right about. Remember the semantics of therm?te. Well my other point was therm?te could be a cause of sulfidation. Mackey said it wasn't possible, and CC said SO2 would have to undergo a reduction.

This actually confirms the validity of both of my points made in that thread.

Yes, I'm still bitter about that thread

You have no one to blame for that but your own poor reading comprehension. I wrote -- and even confirmed for you -- that the reason thermite couldn't form that eutectic had nothing to do with the form of sulfur. It has to do with the temperature. Dr. Biederman and the rest of the WPI team found the eutectic would have been destroyed at 940^oC. Thermite after being activated is much hotter than this.

I also explained that thermite would leave additional signatures that weren't found.

Nothing to do with the sulfur. Even assuming there was any in the thermite to begin with, and none anywhere else.

What it comes down to is that thermite has more holes in it than problems it solves for the Truth Movement. You can't point to one effect, i.e. "Aha! It could explain the sulfur!" and ignore the numerous other consequences of its use. That's what Dr. Jones does, and that's why nobody takes him seriously.

 

[Gravy]

Points confirmed:

1. thermite+sulfur can be called thermate

2. byproducts of therm?te reaction would cause sulfidation.

that is it.

where is the aluminum? good question. go ask an expert. maybe the absence of aluminum in sulfidized steel rules out therm?te, maybe it doesn't....what are you going to do Gravy?

No, Sizzler. YOU said your points were confirmed. Now please tell us the mechanism by which thermate can thermally attack steel, liberating a portion of its ~2% sulfur content sufficient to form a eutectic mixture with the steel, while not melting the steel, and while not leaving its own molten iron, aluminum and barium on/in the steel.

Remember, onlookers: we're talking about a few anomalous small pieces of steel (out of over 200,000 tons) that were preserved and examined because they showed a thinned/eroded effect that took place at less than 1000 degrees C.

Sizzler, I have no problem with you saying, "I need to learn more about this before committing myself." I have a major problem with you claiming that your statements are confirmed based on extraordinarily incomplete information.

I have been asking you this for a long time now, and you agreed that it was the right thing to do: will you be contacting experts in relevant fields?

Answer yes or no, please.

 

[Sizzler]

Gravy and Mackey

I questioned Mackey because;

1. He stated that burium is an ingredient of thermate. This was misleading because it is an ingredient in one version of thermate used by the military. Therm?te can be engineered thus, does not always need barium.

but more importantly;

2. Mackey said a therm?te reaction would not cause sulfur-iron eutectic

lets look at apollo's words for a moment:

On the question of sulfiding of steel, there appears to be the common misconception that this can only be caused by ELEMENTAL sulfur. This is simply not true! In fact, if you search the literature on sulfiding of steel you will find it is inevitably attributed to reactions of iron with SO2, SO3 or H2S. Even if we are talking about thermate, which has added sulfur, the violent OXIDIZING reaction on aluminum also oxidizes the sulfur to SO2 which then attacks any iron present forming an iron sulfide-iron oxide eutectic. (Source: Flatley and Birks, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, July 1971)

This confirms that #1 and #2 above, were misleading (#1) and untrue (#2).

That is it. That was my claim so my points stand.

Now, if you want to argue that the lack of aluminum in FEMA et al reports is direct proof that therm?te did not cause it, be my guest.

Perhaps we should all ask the experts together.

 

[Gravy]

Sizzler, please think about the "violently oxidizing" iron, aluminum, and barium, which make up almost 98% of thermate, and not about the ~2% sulfur. Sizzler, WHERE DID THEY GO?

 

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, please think about the "violently oxidizing" iron, aluminum, and barium, and not about the ~2% sulfur. Sizzler, WHERE DID THEY GO?

Where are you getting this 2% sulfur? Could it be from the military grade thermate?

Also, is barium an essential ingredient in all forms of therm?te?

And,

Even if we are talking about thermate, which has added sulfur, the violent OXIDIZING reaction on aluminum also oxidizes the sulfur to SO2 which then attacks any iron present forming an iron sulfide-iron oxide eutectic. (Source: Flatley and Birks, Journal of the Iron and Steel Institute, July 1971)

would aluminum necessarily show up as a residue in the 'second' attack?

What will you do Gravy? Keep asking me, or go and ask an expert?

 

[Gravy]

Where are you getting this 2% sulfur? Could it be from the military grade thermate?

Since you repeatedly failed to name another formula, we'll stick with the one we know.

Also, is barium an essential ingredient in all forms of therm?te?

Name whatever 29% catalyst you like. Sizzler, WHERE DID IT GO?

would aluminum necessarily show up as a residue in the 'second' attack?

Excuse me? You are pursuing the claim that thermate destroyed the WTC skyscrapers.

What will you do Gravy? Keep asking me, or go and ask an expert?

It's your claim. I have repeatedly asked you to contact the experts, and held your hand through the process of identifying them.

It is abundantly what you won't do to ascertain the truth of these issues, which, if you are right, would be Earth-shattering. It is abundantly clear that you are as intellectually cowardly as the creeps you admire.