Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[phunk]

You have no idea what those things were. The only things they talked about were fibers and iron spheres.
Here's their list of what they documented:
Mineral Wool, Glass Fragments, Glass Fiber, Perlite, Vermiculite, Ca/Si, Fe Sphere, Vesicular Carbonaceous, Hi Temp Si/Al-rich, Vermiculite/Gypsum, Chrysotile, C fiber, C flake

You can't find something if you don't look for it.

That is not a list of things they looked for, that is a list of things they found. They weren't looking for anything specific, and they weren't ignoring anything.

 

[phunk]

No, but you also don't have liquid sugar. Tasty aqueous solution though.

And likewise, you don't have pure molten iron in eutectic corrosion, but you do have a liquid that contains iron.

 

[phunk]

We do not know what they looked at, only what they reported. Their primary concern was MMVF [man-made vitreous fibers].

No, that's not their primary concern, that's just what they found the most of, because it existed in such huge quantities in the towers (millions of ceiling tiles).

 

[lapman]

How can it possibly mean that? To state that it was completely vaporized, you'd need to know what the lead object was and prove that there was none of it left in the rubble afterwards. So let's start with the source, do you have some sort of proof of the identity of the lead prior to being vaporized?

This is typical of C7. He always takes the extreme when it's convenient to his fantasy.

 

[lapman]

I doubt the editor-in-chief reads every article and OK's it. ;-)

Please show the source your assertion that the editor-in-chief reads and OK's every article.

Actually they are supposed to read every article:

In the case of proposed publications, an editor sends advance copies of an author's work or ideas to researchers or scholars who are experts in the field (known as "referees" or "reviewers"), nowadays normally by e-mail or through a web-based manuscript processing system. Usually, there are two or three referees for a given article.

These referees each return an evaluation of the work to the editor, noting weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. Typically, most of the referees' comments are eventually seen by the author; scientific journals observe this convention universally. The editor, usually familiar with the field of the manuscript (although typically not in as much depth as the referees, who are specialists), then evaluates the referees' comments, her or his own opinion of the manuscript, and the context of the scope of the journal or level of the book and readership, before passing a decision back to the author(s), usually with the referees' comments.

(Emphasis mine)

 

[uke2se]

This thread is amazingly funny. C7 is like a Stundie factory.

 

[The Big Dog]

Edit.

That was quick. I misread your post and tried to edit.

I think it's hilarious that you think Post #32 is one word, and I can prove you can't add above 1.

That's an interesting analysis, why the ad homs against him? I didn't get any kind of attitude from his presentation.

I think this misspeaks for itself.

No need to out yourself on an internet forum.

Those are all of red ibis's posts in this thread after he was asked a simple one word question:

"Source?"

Epic fail Red.

 

[Christopher7]

sparks from gravity driven friction of steel on steel. The melting of human remains and other organics. Fly Ash.

TAM

The "grinding creates iron microspheres" is supposition, not science.

The R.J. Lee Group is aware of fly ash and other potential sources of iron spheres and they stated:
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel) .

You are NOT qualified to second guess the R.J. Lee Group. They did not go into detail as to how they determined that the iron spheres were from iron or steel that was melted during the event but that is the determination they reached.

 

[DGM]

So Christopher7:
How much "thermite" would be needed to produce the quantity of micro-spheres you claim could only come from said "thermite"? Why is this so hard for you to answer?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You are NOT qualified to second guess the R.J. Lee Group. They did not go into detail as to how they determined that the iron spheres were from iron or steel that was melted during the event but that is the determination they reached.

So you are not qualified to claim it's Thermite when no evidence of Thermite has been produced. ALl you have is speculation and supposition.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually they are supposed to read every article:
(Emphasis mine)

The editor-in-chief reads the abstract and refers the paper to specialists. The editor may or may not read the manuscript.

I'll look into this more because there is a curiosity here. The paper was published after a review process and Ms. Pileni made false statements in her reasons for resigning.

"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."

This is not true.

Marie Paule Pileni is a professor with a specialty in nanomaterials.

"I cannot accept that the item is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics"

This is not true either. The Nano-thermite paper involves physical chemistry and chemical physics.

 

[RedIbis]

Those are all of red ibis's posts in this thread after he was asked a simple one word question:

"Source?"

Epic fail Red.

I didn't realize you had such trouble with the English language. If I had originally posted, "yes" then edited with the word "Edit" that would suggest that "yes" was not what I meant.

If I meant "yes" I would not have had to edit it. You should be concerned and embarassed I actually have to literally, spell this out for you.

 

[T.A.M.]

The "grinding creates iron microspheres" is supposition, not science.

The R.J. Lee Group is aware of fly ash and other potential sources of iron spheres and they stated:
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel) .

You are NOT qualified to second guess the R.J. Lee Group. They did not go into detail as to how they determined that the iron spheres were from iron or steel that was melted during the event but that is the determination they reached.

It is not supposition. I provided you a link to a paper that discusses it. Try again.

I am more then qualified, as I have said before. They did not go into what exactly caused the formation because there are likely multiple sources. Like I said, during the EVENT (the collapse) there was friction and the destruction and melting of human and other organic remains, all of which could have produced the spheres.

Try again.

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

So Christopher7:
How much "thermite" would be needed to produce the quantity of micro-spheres you claim could only come from said "thermite"? Why is this so hard for you to answer?

Your question is pure sarcasm. As you well know, I have no idea how much thermite/thermate/nano-thermite would be necessary nor does it matter.

The point here is: Iron/steel was melted during the event. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the R.J. Lee Group.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If you are proposing the Thermite shouldn't you at least have some idea of how much was needed?
You do know it's characteristics I would assume, if you are proposing it as a mechanism?
If you know it's characteristics you would know how much was needed to cut steel beams. Was it tons? tens of tons? How big was each charge? how were they placed and attached to the beams?

 

[T.A.M.]

The editor-in-chief reads the abstract and refers the paper to specialists. The editor may or may not read the manuscript.

Not true. Each journal may have its own policy...each editor may have his or her own policy. Stop trying to state as fact that which is merely your wild uneducated assumption.

I'll look into this more because there is a curiosity here. The paper was published after a review process and Ms. Pileni made false statements in her reasons for resigning.

"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."

This is not true.

Marie Paule Pileni is a professor with a specialty in nanomaterials.

"I cannot accept that the item is put in my journal. The article is not about physical chemistry or chemical physics"

This is not true either. The Nano-thermite paper involves physical chemistry and chemical physics.

Her statement is true. The overarching tone, suggested extrapolation, etc... of the "papers" results are political in nature, and they have no place in a scientific journal of any kind.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Your question is pure sarcasm. As you well know, I have no idea how much thermite/thermate/nano-thermite would be necessary nor does it matter.

The point here is: Iron/steel was melted during the event. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the R.J. Lee Group.

No one has a problem with the melting of iron or steel during the collapse of the towers.

TAM

 

[DGM]

Your question is pure sarcasm. As you well know, I have no idea how much thermite/thermate/nano-thermite would be necessary nor does it matter.

The point here is: Iron/steel was melted during the event. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the R.J. Lee Group.

Yes it does and you know it. For the quantities that you claim to be true it would mean TONS of "thermite" had to be used. You need to justify that you choose to ignore.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As to Thermite. How did it work to demolish the buildings?

How was it used to cut steel beams?

 

[Christopher7]

It is not supposition. I provided you a link to a paper that discusses it.

"Research results are reported concerning the microspheres both adhering to and separated from metal and metal alloy surfaces in grinding and erosion processes."

This is about spheres created in the grinding process that is sometimes done to "clean up" welds. This is done with a grinding wheel spinning at high rpm. There is no proof that columns and beams "grinding together" as they fall will create these spheres. Furthermore, a very small percentage of the microspheres created by grinding would actually stick to the columns. Most would be carried away on the breeze. You are grasping at straws.

I am more then qualified, as I have said before.

We have only the word of an anonymous poster so stop making that claim until you are willing to identify yourself and SHOW your credentials.

They did not go into what exactly caused the formation because there are likely multiple sources. Like I said, during the EVENT (the collapse) there was friction and the destruction and melting of human and other organic remains, all of which could have produced the spheres.

Iron spheres from human remains? STUNDIE!!!