• 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?

Brainster said:
The screwballs at the misnamed 911Debunkers site have an update:
Click to expand...
Likely the results of these test:

Money has been raise an tests have begun by independent lab technicians.

Labs have been surveyed for the capabilities they have, including some new capabilities in DSC and Raman (like FTIR).

Staring with known primer chips doing SEM/EDX, FTIR and Raman to characterize chip composition and 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.

Next steps: move on to red/gray chips doing the same test, in characterizing composition, then showing the exotherms and reaction products.

Update July 2, 2014
Click to expand...

Big deal. :rolleyes:
 
Basile's progress report is up and somewhat underwhelming:

Once the best candidates are found, work will move to the phase where funds will be expended using independent facilities. Once funds begin to be spent monthly accountings will be made, no funds have been spent and all will be accounted for publicly.
Click to expand...
 
Have any of you looked at "Proposal for Labs to Study the Building Fire Dust" in the website http:\\markbasile.org? He's talking about a blind analysis with FTIR and DSC with and without oxygen in the atmosphere. If this really happens the results will be interesting. Certainly things not done by the Jones/Harrit team.
 
chrismohr said:
Have any of you looked at "Proposal for Labs to Study the Building Fire Dust" in the website http:\\markbasile.org? He's talking about a blind analysis with FTIR and DSC with and without oxygen in the atmosphere. If this really happens the results will be interesting. Certainly things not done by the Jones/Harrit team.
Click to expand...
The idea behind what he wants to do is good. I suspect he already knows the outcome and this is his "out".

Did you read the "up-date" on that site (I posted it up thread). What do you think about that?
 
I read the "update" and have little to comment on. Both the update and the proposal talk about the DSC tests, however. What will be interesting is to see if this lab he finds that is supposed to be doing a materials characterization test on the red-grey chips will ask, "Why are you having us do DSC, that won't tell us what the materials are?" They may not; when I was looking for a lab to do chip tests, some were willing to just blindly do whatever, and others had a protocol they explained to me. Millette was a guy who followed standard protocol for materials characterization and was very thorough, doing several tests that Harrit/Jones either didn't do at all or never released the results of (TEM and FTIR). And he had no interest in doing tests that did not help him I.D. the chips (DSC). I agree with Basile, finding a lab and moving carefully forward is important.

That said, Mark seems to be willing to publish all results no matter what. He is directing the protocol, and I did not. I just said ID the chips, I'm not telling you how how do your job. Mark could argue that he is way more qualified to direct the protocol than I was. Oystein once said Mark was one of the most honest of the 9/11 Truth people, and I have not seen any evidence yet to contradict Oystein's opinion.
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
I read the "update" and have little to comment on. Both the update and the proposal talk about the DSC tests, however. What will be interesting is to see if this lab he finds that is supposed to be doing a materials characterization test on the red-grey chips will ask, "Why are you having us do DSC, that won't tell us what the materials are?" They may not; when I was looking for a lab to do chip tests, some were willing to just blindly do whatever, and others had a protocol they explained to me. Millette was a guy who followed standard protocol for materials characterization and was very thorough, doing several tests that Harrit/Jones either didn't do at all or never released the results of (TEM and FTIR). And he had no interest in doing tests that did not help him I.D. the chips (DSC). I agree with Basile, finding a lab and moving carefully forward is important.

That said, Mark seems to be willing to publish all results no matter what. He is directing the protocol, and I did not. I just said ID the chips, I'm not telling you how how do your job. Mark could argue that he is way more qualified to direct the protocol than I was. Oystein once said Mark was one of the most honest of the 9/11 Truth people, and I have not seen any evidence yet to contradict Oystein's opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree, I do believe Marks intentions are sincere.

I wondering about this:

the update said:
Staring with known primer chips doing SEM/EDX, FTIR and Raman to characterize chip composition and 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 breakdo
Click to expand...

Why even do this (assuming Mark authorized it)? Did these samples pass the screening as described in the original proposal?
 
The DSC issue is central to Mark, Jones/Harrit, etc. They are convinced that only a thermite reaction can create the iron-rich spheres, and that regular paint on steel can't do this. Dave Thomas's little experiment casts doubt on that, as does my fire chemists' assertions that near-adiabatic temps in highly localized areas can actually melt iron/steel on a micro-scale.

Basile is wanting to see if known paint does NOT burn and create these microspheres at 430 C, but the problem I see with this is that THEIR chips are known paint to anyone who looks at what materials they are composed of. So they will find other paint chips, and those may not ignite at 430C and create microspheres. We know that some paint chips don't ignite like the mystery chips. I think Tnemec chips don't, as a very important example. So if other chips behave differently when heated to 430C, this just tells us they are different from Basile's mysteryu chips. We already know from Mark Basile's burnings that the LaClede chips (or thermite as they believe) DO ignite and create iron-rich spheres. So we know in advance that the same results are likely from this blind lab study. It's not going to be news if, as they expect, some kinds of chips ignite and create microspheres and others don't. That's common knowledge I think.

But the other experimental results, if fully released (FTIR/TEM etc), will show what MATERIALS these chips are made of. Let's see if the lab comes back and says this is paint, or this is thermite, or this is cotton candy, or whatever, if indeed Basile is giving the products to them blind and saying "tell us what this is" without leaking to them in any way that they are looking for thermite. If he's really doing that and not just the DSC comparisons, then I give him credit for intellectual courage. In that case, the DSC comparisons of paint and his mystery chips will show only that they are two materials with different properties (such as Tenemec and LaClede, as most of us think they are).

But the materials characterization tests will trump the DSC comparisons, in my opinion.
 
Spanx said:
I guess the idea is to test primer paint which has not been adhered to a layer of rust then test the red/gray chips which have been adhered to a layer of rust then shout iron microspheres it must be thermite.

Why else would Ziggy be barking on about iron-microspheres ?
Click to expand...

Who is Ziggy?

I was contacted a week ago by a Truther named Wayne who others claim is a civil engineer. He wanted to discuss WTC7, and how far steel can fly from a collapsing building. Kevin Barrett, Dr. Griscom and Rick Shaddock joined in, writing, wanting to debate me on Kevin's Friday evening radio show--got quite a few correspondences, lots of name calling. And then this vicious guy named Ziggy pops up at the end to tell me I was an "embarrassment to JREF" and that my comments were "lunatic ranting." Whoever he is, he's one angry guy.

Who is he?
 
frank3373 said:
Who is Ziggy?

I was contacted a week ago by a Truther named Wayne who others claim is a civil engineer. He wanted to discuss WTC7, and how far steel can fly from a collapsing building. Kevin Barrett, Dr. Griscom and Rick Shaddock joined in, writing, wanting to debate me on Kevin's Friday evening radio show--got quite a few correspondences, lots of name calling. And then this vicious guy named Ziggy pops up at the end to tell me I was an "embarrassment to JREF" and that my comments were "lunatic ranting." Whoever he is, he's one angry guy.

Who is he?
Click to expand...

Ziggi is a dedicated researcher and writer who got banned from JREF when he protested the lack of balance shown by those who control the administrative whip.
 
Miragememories said:
Ziggi is a dedicated researcher and writer who got banned from JREF when he protested the lack of balance shown by those who control the administrative whip.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Unless you have some way of peeking into everyone's private messages here, you have no basis for claiming the moderation is one-sided against you.
 
frank3373 said:
Who is Ziggy?

... And then this vicious guy named Ziggy pops up at the end to tell me I was an "embarrassment to JREF" and that my comments were "lunatic ranting." Whoever he is, he's one angry guy.

Who is he?
Click to expand...

Good characterisation: That's what Ziggy is, an angry, vicious guy.
He is one of the regular posters at the Debunking the debunkers blog alongside Adam Taylor, JM Talboo and others.
I have had him comment on my own blog, as an anonymous, and he was angry and ranting throughout. Little substance, less structure in his thoughts. Calling your posts "lunatic ranting" is classical projection, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Ziggi is a dedicated researcher and writer who got banned from JREF when he protested the lack of balance shown by those who control the administrative whip.
Click to expand...

Well, if Ziggi protested the "lack of balance" using the manner and method in which he corresponded with me, naming calling, threats, no substance to anything or intelligent reply to my arguments, JREF didn't throw him out too soon.

I notice you are still here, posting. Guess the "whip" just didn't like Ziggi, but likes you, or could it be he was obnoxious?

BTW, I've posted polite, mildly worded initial counter arguments on every Truther website I can find, our friend Adam's included, and I've never had a comment printed. So I guess you could say I have been banned from all Truther sites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom