Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[Tezro]

Yet it fails to hold its ground when presented with well crafted "B given A" statements. If you had a theory it wouldn't come into contradiction with itself by your own team's statements!

Perhaps Java Man would like to present a well crafted "B given A" statement regarding the topic of this thread, to illustrate the strength of his position, and perhaps to illustrate what exactly he is talking about.

Anything to say regarding the significance of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust? Please state it in the logically devastating "B given A" form.

 

[000063]

Nope. They do not always mean explosives, and in this case, none of the characteristics of explosives were present, even where they should've been.

Nope. Claims of molten steel in fires do not always mean what was seen was actually steel, and it is, in fact, impossible to tell the difference by eye. You're only accepting both of these as proof positive because they support your case.

Gosh, you sound just like Ergo. Is that the level you want to sink to?

Is this another one of those threads where Thruters (because mixing up letters in words is hilarious!) fail to realize that just because someone hears an explosion it doesn't mean that there were explosives?

I guess that's the argument you'll have to go back to now...

I wasn't making that up. Ergo has been corrected that fact numerous times, and he almost always ignores it. Even when he directly responds, the best he can come up with is some sort of feeble incredulity. Yet he will claim, at the drop of a hat, that the standard debunker position is that explosions are never explosives.

And now you're making the same claim, and ignoring people telling you you're wrong. Just like your friend and mine.

 

[Oystein]

What really worries me, aside from your horrible run on sentence there, is that it took you only 5 minutes to quote me from an event a year and a half ago.

LOL
70 minutes, actually. Go look back which of my posts quoted which of your posts.

If you take D into account and realize that E, given F and G, implies H, then you will certainly understand that I has to be true and revoke J.
And I fully trust you see no need for me to provide the content of D, E, F, G, H, I and J, as you felt no need to tell us which A, B and C you had in mind, just like you forgot to tell us - well - anything of substance at all. Like a solid theory.

9/11 Twoof - 10 years of content-free babble.

 

[Java Man]

LOL
70 minutes, actually. Go look back which of my posts quoted which of your posts.

Good, you caught on and actually challenged the validity of my statement unlike 000063 who clearly tried to make the false seem possible. It is interesting how 000063 brought forth reasons to support the idea that you quoted me in 5 minutes by questioning my capacity to "have the slightest idea how many ways there are to make notes and bookmarks for yourself? ". Then saying "I have literally dozens on Google Bookmarks right now.", as if that meant he could a) happen to have my post bookmarked and b) find it within a few minutes time to quote me.

Since the burden of proof isn't on him he can make these statements to promote the validity of phenomenon that didn't actually occur. In this case you quoting me within 5 minutes. Nevertheless an alternate reality is simply created out of the blue in the debunker camp.

See now how your lack of burden of proof becomes your own worst enemy.

 

[Oystein]

Good, you caught on and actually challenged the validity of my statement unlike 000063 who clearly tried to make the false seem possible. It is interesting how 000063 brought forth reasons to support the idea that you quoted me in 5 minutes by questioning my capacity to "have the slightest idea how many ways there are to make notes and bookmarks for yourself? ". Then saying "I have literally dozens on Google Bookmarks right now.", as if that meant he could a) happen to have my post bookmarked and b) find it within a few minutes time to quote me.

Since the burden of proof isn't on him he can make these statements to promote the validity of phenomenon that didn't actually occur. In this case you quoting me within 5 minutes. Nevertheless an alternate reality is simply created out of the blue in the debunker camp.

See now how your lack of burden of proof becomes your own worst enemy.

The real test will be how 000063 will react to this. Perhaps it will serve as a lecture about truthers and debunkers: One side accepting evidence and correcting false claims as evidence becomes available, the other never acknowledging evidence and never making ot correcting claims.

*grabs a bag of potato chips*


ETA: Oh: Re. "000063 who clearly tried to make the false seem possible": Of course it is possible that I have bookmarks to your nonsense. 000063 didn't make a false statement and didn't imply one. When YOU wrote "...it took you only 5 minutes to quote me from an event a year and a half ago", did you mean to imply that it actually took me only 5 minutes to write that reply? Then you surely must have assumed that it is possible somehow to write the reply, quote from 1.5 years ago included, within 5 minutes. Which explanation would YOU have for that? Magic? Superior search skills? Or perhaps - bookmarks?

 

[Java Man]

Perhaps Java Man would like to present a well crafted "B given A" statement regarding the topic of this thread, to illustrate the strength of his position, and perhaps to illustrate what exactly he is talking about.

It seems to be the point of this thread that some sort of high energy burning device was used given the presence of certain type of metal residue commonly referred to as "iron-rich spheres". The debunker position is that no high energy burning device was used given the abundance of similar metal residue in other fires.

 

[Java Man]

The real test will be how 000063 will react to this. Perhaps it will serve as a lecture about truthers and debunkers: One side accepting evidence and correcting false claims as evidence becomes available, the other never acknowledging evidence and never making ot correcting claims.

*grabs a bag of potato chips*

Yes we'll see. Just for the record, I was mistaken and didn't notice the hour difference. Thus I stand corrected by your post, just to be clear.

 

[Oystein]

It seems to be the point of this thread that some sort of high energy burning device was used given the presence of certain type of metal residue commonly referred to as "iron-rich spheres". The debunker position is that no high energy burning device was used given the abundance of similar metal residue in other fires.

I could be mistaken, but it seems to be Tezro's point that he wants to know what YOUR position is on the issue.

But thanks for reminding us of the thread topic. Perhaps a reposting of the OP is in order?

Hello to the more able among you! This goes out to those who already know what I am talking about by just reading the title of this thread:

What about them "iron-rich micro-spheres in the dust of WTC"?



You know: Jones, Harrit e.al. say that they found iron-rich micro-spheres after incinerating their famous red-grey chips.
J.R.Lee group found that about 6% of the dust found inside a building right next door to GZ was made up of iron, mostly in the form of tiny spheres.

I understand that micro-spheres form when the material cools from liquid to solid. So to me, the layman, it appears reasonable to say that iron-rich micro-spheres had a temperature above their melting point just before they formed. Jones and other truthers interprete this as evidence that fires must have burned that heated (macroscopic amounts of) steel above the melting point of steel - which most of us would consider highly unlikely from uncontrolled hydrocarbon fires.

I understand that such microspheres were certainly formed during clean-up, when steel was cut with blow-torches and mechanically. But I doubt that this process would deposit large amounts of such spheres to locations away from GZ.

It seems to me that most of these spheres must either have formed during the fires, or been present even before 9/11 and released during the collapses.

My questions thus are:

• What do we know about this already?
• Can ironspheres form during "normal" fires, and if so, how?
• Did Jones and Harrit really find ironspheres, and did they really form when they burned their chips?
• How many such spheres are already contained in building materials, such as concrete?

I find many good answers on the first page, and only very few and far in between on all following pages.

Maybe Java Man has a solid theory here - some "B, given A", only with actual content for "A" and "B"

 

[The Almond]

[...]The debunker position is that no high energy burning device was used given the abundance of similar metal residue in other fires.

False. An intellectually honest analysis of the relevant facts shows that so called "high energy burning devices" (a meaningless term, given that Thermite has a far lower energy density than ordinary paper) are not necessary to explain the presence of Fe rich microspheres (which are, in fact Fe oxides or Fe hydroxides or amorphous Fe silicates). The Truther position necessarily assumes that only Thermite produces such spheres because Truthers believe that their presence proves that thermite was used.

 

[Java Man]

I could be mistaken, but it seems to be Tezro's point that he wants to know what YOUR position is on the issue.

MY position is irrelevant. An attorney defends his client regardless of his belief on the responsibility in the crime or the gruesomeness of it. I don't let my lack of belief in 911 truth to interfere. For me it is not a personal fight. It is an exercise in reasoning. Haven't you caught on to that yet?

 

[Myriad]

MY position is irrelevant. An attorney defends his client regardless of his belief on the responsibility in the crime or the gruesomeness of it. I don't let my lack of belief in 911 truth to interfere. For me it is not a personal fight. It is an exercise in reasoning. Haven't you caught on to that yet?

Interesting. You can exercise reasoning without any actual reasoning?

If you could make that work with physical exercise, you could become quite rich.

 

[Java Man]

False. An intellectually honest analysis of the relevant facts shows that so called "high energy burning devices" (a meaningless term, given that Thermite has a far lower energy density than ordinary paper) are not necessary to explain the presence of Fe rich microspheres (which are, in fact Fe oxides or Fe hydroxides or amorphous Fe silicates). The Truther position necessarily assumes that only Thermite produces such spheres because Truthers believe that their presence proves that thermite was used.

Ha, but that is where you make your first mistake. You take all 911 truth evidence as isolated data. Yes, isolated the iron-spheres prove nothing, but in context they begin to weigh. More so you seem to lack any significant comparison between 911 spheres and other spheres. You claim that spheres could have been produced in other ways. And yes they could, but they could have also been produced by thermite. Thus the point the truthers pursue is that given the profile of the collapse, how fast it happened and the residue of iron-rich spheres then they see a smoking gun. Had all this happen with no iron-rich sphere residue then certainly you'd have a point, but it didn't so you don't.

On the comment of paper and thermite. It also matters how fast it is released. An arrow is heavier than a bullet, but the bullet travels faster.

 

[The Almond]

Ha, but that is where you make your first mistake. You take all 911 truth evidence as isolated data.

False. I take the data as they are presented. In the case of Harrit et al, the paper focuses on the identification of Fe rich microspheres, which the authors take as prima facie evidence of thermite. They further stipulate that the thermite was a coating applied to the steel beams used to bring down the towers. No other mechanisms or evidence are provided, except as they relate to compositional analysis and thermodynamic analysis, which later proved irrelevant. I should note that the evidence presented by Harrit et al stands in stark contrast to evidence presented by other Truthers. In fact, the thermite theory readily debunks all other theories because it encompasses an incredibly narrow range of "evidence."

The fault is not mine if I merely take the evidence as presented. 9/11 truth is at best a loose confederation of diametrically opposed theories. We've identified them on this forum as "No-Planers", "Conventional Explosives", "Therm*te" and "Space Beams". They present evidence that readily contradicts evidence in all other camps, and they seem to delight in ignoring evidence presented by other Truthers. A perfect example is the conventional explosives camp discussing the "explosions" heard by the first responders and and using that as proof of the use of explosives. That seems to bother the space beamers and the therm*ters because their methods require no such explosives.

Yes, isolated the iron-spheres prove nothing, but in context they begin to weigh.

Actually, they mean a good bit more than you realize. If unequivocal evidence of thermite were discovered, it would disprove all other conspiracy theories, and the resulting evidence would have to be evaluated using the thermite theory. Gage's argument of the similarities of the WTC 7 collapse to a conventional controlled demolition exclude thermite as a possibility, since thermite is not used in conventional controlled demolitions.

More so you seem to lack any significant comparison between 911 spheres and other spheres. You claim that spheres could have been produced in other ways. And yes they could, but they could have also been produced by thermite.

Thus, the presence of Fe microspheres cannot be used as evidence of thermite. Attention Oystein: Truthers now believe Fe microsphers prove nothing. You may return to your ordinary life now.

Thus the point the truthers pursue is that given the profile of the collapse, how fast it happened and the residue of iron-rich spheres then they see a smoking gun. Had all this happen with no iron-rich sphere residue then certainly you'd have a point, but it didn't so you don't.

Pardon? Fe rich microspheres were found, in great abundances, and they were all produced by non-thermite methods. They would have happened anyway because of the fire, thus nothing can be inferred from their presence other than that a fire occurred.

On the comment of paper and thermite. It also matters how fast it is released. An arrow is heavier than a bullet, but the bullet travels faster.

Then I would suggest that you use the term "rapid energy release device" rather than "high energy burning device". This will save me having to correct your usage in the future.

 

[Oystein]

MY position is irrelevant.

As the person who opened the thread and asked the questions I quoted in my previous post I can tell you with certainty that I hoped to get nothing but the actual positions of those who elected to post in this thread.

An attorney defends his client regardless of his belief on the responsibility in the crime or the gruesomeness of it.

This is not a criminal court case, and you are not defending any suspect.

I don't let my lack of belief in 911 truth to interfere.

Well that is great, because we are not interested in beliefs here, we are interested in cold facts. Got any?

For me it is not a personal fight. It is an exercise in reasoning. Haven't you caught on to that yet?

Truth to be told, no, I haven't caught on that yet. You operated with some A's and B's, but haven't filled these blanks with and claims of facts yet. So there wasn't any reasoning yet from you that addressed the topic.
Please start now.

 

[Oystein]

...
Thus, the presence of Fe microspheres cannot be used as evidence of thermite. Attention Oystein: Truthers now believe Fe microsphers prove nothing. You may return to your ordinary life now.
...

Awww... if only it were so... but it isn't!
You see, Java Man doesn't represent the truthers' position.
In fact, he doesn't even represent his own position!
He just admitted to playing the kind of advocate who might even argue cases he thinks are wrong (that he doesn't believe in).

 

[Java Man]

Thus, the presence of Fe microspheres cannot be used as evidence of thermite.

Actually the lack of presence of Fe microspheres would certainly rule out the use of thermite. Which is what you seek to achieve, ruling out thermite. The presence of such FE particles allows for the use of thermite. It DOES NOT conclusively prove its usage, but it allows for its usage to have occurred. That is, starting off with the theory of controlled demolition the prime requisite is some controllable device (aka explosive) to be used. If you can rule that out by the lack of Fe microspheres which would be a tell tale sign, then you score against CD. But you can, because while the source of Fe microspheres can be other than thermite it could be thermite as well, leaving the door open for CD.

 

[NoahFence]

Actually the lack of presence of Fe microspheres would certainly rule out the use of thermite. Which is what you seek to achieve, ruling out thermite. The presence of such FE particles allows for the use of thermite. It DOES NOT conclusively prove its usage, but it allows for its usage to have occurred. That is, starting off with the theory of controlled demolition the prime requisite is some controllable device (aka explosive) to be used. If you can rule that out by the lack of Fe microspheres which would be a tell tale sign, then you score against CD. But you can, because while the source of Fe microspheres can be other than thermite it could be thermite as well, leaving the door open for CD.

 

[beachnut]

Actually the lack of presence of Fe microspheres would certainly rule out ...

Were there any Fe micro-spheres found at the WTC? Can you show one?

There was no thermite found, that was a lie.

 

[000063]

Good, you caught on and actually challenged the validity of my statement unlike 000063 who clearly tried to make the false seem possible. It is interesting how 000063 brought forth reasons to support the idea that you quoted me in 5 minutes by questioning my capacity to "have the slightest idea how many ways there are to make notes and bookmarks for yourself? ". Then saying "I have literally dozens on Google Bookmarks right now.", as if that meant he could a) happen to have my post bookmarked and b) find it within a few minutes time to quote me.

Yep, you got me. I pointed out that your statement was irrelevant while working under the assumption it was true, an assumption I did not actually check. The same assumption you were working under. It was not true. You were wrong, and therefore I was wrong.

Since the burden of proof isn't on him he can make these statements to promote the validity of phenomenon that didn't actually occur. In this case you quoting me within 5 minutes. Nevertheless an alternate reality is simply created out of the blue in the debunker camp.

Wait, wait, wait...I assumed your claim was true, and pointed out it didn't matter worth a toss, and you're using that as example of how debunkers frequently make things up?

I'd like to see your thought processes, I really would.

See now how your lack of burden of proof becomes your own worst enemy.

I was using your premise, not mine.

What's with the third person, Starbucks? I'm right here. Respond to me directly.

I also like how you don't actually address the content of the post.

Or, for that matter, post 2000.

You're blowing a lot of hot air about "the discussion", but not actually talking about the relevant facts. If it's so hopeless to argue against debunkers, why are you here?

 

[000063]

The real test will be how 000063 will react to this. Perhaps it will serve as a lecture about truthers and debunkers: One side accepting evidence and correcting false claims as evidence becomes available, the other never acknowledging evidence and never making ot correcting claims.

*grabs a bag of potato chips*

Well, I admitted I was wrong to assume Java was right without checking. Does that count?

ETA: Oh: Re. "000063 who clearly tried to make the false seem possible": Of course it is possible that I have bookmarks to your nonsense. 000063 didn't make a false statement and didn't imply one.

Yep. I presented that as a possible explanation. It is really not difficult to keep lots of bookmarks for easy access.

When I said "dozens", incidentally, I meant dozens of gBookmarks overall. My 911 bookmarks specifically only number 13. Not counting the #000063bookmark tag.

When YOU wrote "...it took you only 5 minutes to quote me from an event a year and a half ago", did you mean to imply that it actually took me only 5 minutes to write that reply? Then you surely must have assumed that it is possible somehow to write the reply, quote from 1.5 years ago included, within 5 minutes. Which explanation would YOU have for that? Magic? Superior search skills? Or perhaps - bookmarks?

Actually, this whole thing is a red herring to avoid addressing the substance of the post. I'm not sure what he was trying to imply; that you had the post written up already? That you are obsessed with him, and have memorized his every post, every minor error, every claim? Like many conspiracists, there's some ego in there.