Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Christopher7]

Exactly.

Too bad for you it never passed peer review, huh?

IYO. You are not qualified to second guess Neils Harrit and Dr. Farrer or the thermite paper.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually, he can question "the government" all he wants. Doesn't mean that his employers have to keep him on. I mean, if I worked at a vet's office, and I believed that animals couldn't feel pain, I could rightfully expect them not to keep me around.

That is entirely different than questioning the government. If we cannot question the OCT without fear of loosing our job then we do not have freedom of speech.

And how high a temperature is that? Does it take into account things like a honking huge UPS? How about the kinetic energy of both the impacts, and the collapsing of a honking huge building? What about the temperature of the pile post-collapse, any way to model that?

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC[FONT=&quot] event, producing spherical metallic particles."[/FONT]

 

[Dog Town]

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.

Your statement aside. Do you really think there weren't numerous other ways to produce spheres, that occurred at Ground Zero? REALLY?

 

[TheRedWorm]

That is entirely different than questioning the government. If we cannot question the OCT without fear of loosing our job then we do not have freedom of speech.

You completely ignored my example. Besides, my brother questions 9/11 (or at least, did) and he has not been fired from his job.

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC[FONT=&quot] event, producing spherical metallic particles."[/FONT]

You ignored the valid points and questions I posted. For your convenience, I will post the bits you need to answer:

And how high a temperature is that? Does it take into account things like a honking huge UPS? How about the kinetic energy of both the impacts, and the collapsing of a honking huge building? What about the temperature of the pile post-collapse, any way to model that?

Even if we take your bare assertion as fact, you still have to explain, in detail, how much therm&te was there, and how it got there, just for starters.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper

Several who post here are as qualified as any authors of that paper. None of the authors of that paper had any special qualifications with respect to thermite. Three of them had PhDs in a scientific discipline, as do a number of those who post at JREF.

that was OK'd by BYU.

Research universities generally do not review papers written by their faculty prior to publication. BYU's 2006 review of Jones was extraordinary, controversial, and did not go well for Jones; he was placed on paid leave, and retired from BYU early in 2007. The thermite paper wasn't published until April 2009.

The fires in the Trade Towers were not anywhere near hot enough. Thermite is the only known explanation.

Nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that vapor forms well below the boiling point. Water vapor, for example, forms well below the boiling point of water, and can be experienced rather directly on muggy, foggy, or cloudy days. Similarly, lead fumes (vapor) form well below the boiling point of lead.

Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris but you cannot come up with another explanation for the vaporized lead. Thermite is therefore indicated.

The thermite paper speculated about double top secret thermite in the debris but fell well short of demonstrating any such thing. Many scientists found its speculations to be laughable, raising questions about the alleged peer review process at the journal in which it was published. It turns out that the publication of that paper was highly irregular, and took place without the knowledge or consent of the journal's editor, who resigned in protest.

 

[Christopher7]

Your statement aside. Do you really think there weren't numerous other ways to produce spheres, that occurred at Ground Zero? REALLY?

Not in the abundance found in the interior and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building and not in samples from around lower Manhattan.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

C7, is the king of bald assertions, I'm not wasting time with his arguments... While you guys continue to deal with him, I'm jus' gonna slip this back in since I'm still curious what the thread starter has to offer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6134918&postcount=55

Are there any sources that I can look at which state evidence pertaining to the precollapse condition of the building? Considering the history of the claimant used in the OP's video I would doubt he's the source of such a claim and I haven't seen anything about this data. Red, would you still mind linking it?

 

[Dog Town]

Not in the abundance found in the interior and on the roof of the Bankers Trust building and not in samples from around lower Manhattan.

Any sciency stuff involved, or is that just your gut instinct?

PS
Did you learn anything, from your Stundie nomination, yet?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6140615&postcount=226

 

[Christopher7]

You completely ignored my example. Besides, my brother questions 9/11 (or at least, did) and he has not been fired from his job.

He was forced to retire because he questioned the OCT. That is a frontal attack on his first amendment right and a warning to others. It does have the effect of silencing many.

You ignored the valid points and questions I posted. For your convenience, I will post the bits you need to answer:
you still have to explain, in detail, how much therm&te was there, and how it got there, just for starters.

Your question is silly. ;-0

There is no way I could know these things. You have moved the goalpost to the dark side of the moon.

The USGS and R.J. Lee Group reports confirm temperatures far above what office or debris pile fires can attain.

Y'all keep denying this because you can't deal with the consequences.

 

[TheRedWorm]

He was forced to retire because he questioned the OCT. That is a frontal attack on his first amendment right and a warning to others. It does have the effect of silencing many.

You now ignored two completely different points that addressed this. Bravo.

Your question is silly. ;-0

There is no way I could know these things. You have moved the goalpost to the dark side of the moon.

The USGS and R.J. Lee Group reports confirm temperatures far above what office or debris pile fires can attain.

Y'all keep denying this because you can't deal with the consequences.

Can't deal with the consequences? First off, we only have your bare assertion that this is true, you've not cited anything to support it. Also, to a larger point, it's been nearly a decade since the attacks, and almost 5 since the heyday (2006) of da twoof. What real world impact do truthers actually have? What do you actually hope to accomplish by posting here?

 

[Dog Town]

Y'all keep denying this because you can't deal with the consequences.

See my sig!

 

[Christopher7]

Several who post here are as qualified as any authors of that paper.

Name one and their qualifications.

None of the authors of that paper had any special qualifications with respect to thermite.

They are qualified to study the red/gray chips and determine what they are.

Nonsense. You are ignoring the fact that vapor forms well below the boiling point. Water vapor, for example, forms well below the boiling point of water, and can be experienced rather directly on muggy, foggy, or cloudy days. Similarly, lead fumes (vapor) form well below the boiling point of lead.

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.

The PTB are doing everything they can to cast doubt on the thermite paper.

The thermite paper speculated about double top secret thermite in the debris but fell well short of demonstrating any such thing. Many scientists found its speculations to be laughable, raising questions about the alleged peer review process at the journal in which it was published. It turns out that the publication of that paper was highly irregular, and took place without the knowledge or consent of the journal's editor, who resigned in protest.

Bentham publishes over 100 journals. Is the Editor-in-Chief consulted on every article?

"I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them, "says Marie-Paule Pileni, which daily is a professor specializing in nanomaterials at the prestigious Université Pierre et Marie Curie in France."

"The editor-in-chief’s dramatic departure gives critics additional reason to doubt the article’s conclusions, but Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad."

Do you see the conundrum here? She is quite qualified to understand the research done by Prof. Harrit et al. Specific expertise in nano-thermite is not required to understand the photographs and chemical analysis of the nano-thermite found in the WTC dust..

 

[Dog Town]

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.

Perhaps it is not yours. I already proved you wrong in this thread, and the STUNDIES!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6140615&postcount=226

Vaporized:
to cause to change into vapor.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vaporized

 

[Christopher7]

Can't deal with the consequences? First off, we only have your bare assertion that this is true, you've not cited anything to support it.

Wrong! I am quoting official reports.

Also, to a larger point, it's been nearly a decade since the attacks, and almost 5 since the heyday (2006) of da twoof. What real world impact do truthers actually have? What do you actually hope to accomplish by posting here?

Two things: To refine counter arguments to your denial arguments and keep the truth in front of any lurkers that might be fooled with your endless denial BS.

 

[T.A.M.]

You and the anonymous posters here are not qualified to refute the thermite paper that was OK'd by BYU.

The fires in the Trade Towers were not anywhere near hot enough. Thermite is the only known explanation.

Without the thermite paper I cannot "prove" there was thermite in the debris but you cannot come up with another explanation for the vaporized lead. Thermite is therefore indicated.

1. Please show me the proof that BYU "Oked" the Jones "paper".
2. Please show me the PROOF of vaporized lead.

Thanks

TAM

 

[excaza]

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.

You're right, the sentence IS quite clear in stating that lead was vaporized. It's already been pointed out to you how this can happen below the melting point of a material.

I seem to have missed it, where does it say lead was completely vaporized?

 

[Christopher7]

Perhaps it is not yours. I already proved you wrong in this thread, and the STUNDIES!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6140615&postcount=226

I am so thrilled to be on your Stundies list. Given that this forum is known for denail and childish insults, it is indeed an honor. [however dubious ;-)]

 

[T.A.M.]

I have posted the proof several times.
From the R.J. Lee Group report:
[FONT=&quot]Pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, [FONT=&quot]Vaporized[/FONT][FONT=&quot] and then condensed during the WTC Event."[/FONT][/FONT]

That is not proof, that is a quote. Do they go on to then prove that the lead was vaporized, or is it merely their opinion. If they go on to prove it, please provide a quote of their proof here.

Thanks

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC[FONT=&quot] event, producing spherical metallic particles."[/FONT]

Incorrect.

Care to try again.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Wrong! I am quoting official reports.

Two things: To refine counter arguments to your denial arguments and keep the truth in front of any lurkers that might be fooled with your endless denial BS.

what lurkers? this isn't 2006. There is no one left to convince Chris. Those few who believe the nonsense you do are it...that is all. It is over. You are merely a ball of wool for the amusement of the JREF kittens.

TAM