Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[T.A.M.]

FLY ASH
http://inderscience.metapress.com/a...al,14,17;linkingpublicationresults,1:112378,1

DUE TO GRINDING
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=5cda8b93e684064ea215ee9548581a43

For the love of god.

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

FLY ASH
http://inderscience.metapress.com/a...al,14,17;linkingpublicationresults,1:112378,1

DUE TO GRINDING
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=5cda8b93e684064ea215ee9548581a43

From the second link:
"The formation of the microspheres is considered to be due to local high temperatures which cause melting of the metal."

 

[Christopher7]

What makes you so sure that "liquify" means "melt"?

liquefy: become or make liquid

 

[Andy_Ross]

From the second link:
"The formation of the microspheres is considered to be due to local high temperatures which cause melting of the metal."

like welding, grinding, flame cutting etc.

 

[Christopher7]

like welding, grinding, flame cutting etc.

The dust samples from the interior and roof of the Bankers Trust building was deposited by the dust clouds from the collapses of the towers. Any microspheres from the "cleanup" would not have been spread as the WTC collapse dust was.

The R.J. Lee Group said: "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [FONT=&quot]Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

ETA:"[/FONT]Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust."
[FONT=&quot]
You think you know more about it than they do, you do not. You are in denial and you are groping for alternate explanations. The iron spheres in the WTC dust were also in the 35 samples gathered by the USGS a few days after the event.
[/FONT]

 

[DGM]

Christopher7:
How much "thermite" would be needed to produce the amount of micro-spheres you claim are in the dust? A guess of how many tons will suffice.


BTW: Do you plan to show someday that "thermite" could actually do what you say it can?

 

[ComsatAngel2017]

You Failed at:

http://www.youtube.

.

Real scientists do not conduct their research experimentation on Youtube

Next.

(Oh - how's that narrative coming, Red?)

 

[Christopher7]

Christopher7:
How much "thermite" would be needed to produce the amount of micro-spheres you claim are in the dust? A guess of how many tons will suffice.

I don't know.

This subject shift is a denial tactic. The point here is the iron spheres and the vaporized lead occurred during the 9/11 event.

 

[DGM]

So? Why do you attribute it to "thermite" with absolutely no evidence to support it? Science has described a method to explain this phenomenon, you have not!

 

[Christopher7]

You Failed at:



Real scientists do not conduct their research experimentation on Youtube

Next.

(Oh - how's that narrative coming, Red?)

Jon Cole put "The sulfur is from the drywall" disinformation to rest. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support that ridiculous hypothesis. Drywall is used for fireproofing. The claim that the sulfur in drywall was released from its chemical bonds in the fire is baseless and false.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The dust samples from the interior and roof of the Bankers Trust building was deposited by the dust clouds from the collapses of the towers. Any microspheres from the "cleanup" would not have been spread as the WTC collapse dust was.

The R.J. Lee Group said: "Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC [FONT=&quot]Event, producing spherical metallic particles."

ETA:"[/FONT]Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust."
[FONT=&quot]
You think you know more about it than they do, you do not. You are in denial and you are groping for alternate explanations. The iron spheres in the WTC dust were also in the 35 samples gathered by the USGS a few days after the event.
[/FONT]

You are the one making the extraordinary claim. it's up to you to provide the support for the claim. You are trying to shift the burden of proof on to us. We don't have to give an affermative rebuttal. If you want your suggestion to be taken seriously you need to provide some support.

 

[Christopher7]

So? Why do you attribute it to "thermite" with absolutely no evidence to support it? Science has described a method to explain this phenomenon, you have not!

The temperatures that vaporized lead can only be explained by thermite. Thermite was found in the WTC dust and your denial of this is just denial. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.

 

[Christopher7]

You are the one making the extraordinary claim. it's up to you to provide the support for the claim. You are trying to shift the burden of proof on to us. We don't have to give an affermative rebuttal. If you want your suggestion to be taken seriously you need to provide some support.

I am quoting scientific reports. You are denying them.

 

[DGM]

The temperatures that vaporized lead can only be explained by thermite. Thermite was found in the WTC dust and your denial of this is just denial. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.

No! Continuing to say this does not make it true. Show your proof that "thermite" could do this or STFU (your phrase I believe).

 

[Andy_Ross]

I am quoting scientific reports. You are denying them.

You claim that thermite was used in large quantities to demolish a building in a manner that has never been seen before and where there is no evidence of thermite.

I think you are making extraordinary claims. So far all I have seen is you playing with your 'window dressing' of iron microspheres but the shop itself seems empty.

 

[T.A.M.]

From the second link:
"The formation of the microspheres is considered to be due to local high temperatures which cause melting of the metal."

yes...that is right...high temperatures...melted metal....

What is your point? is anyone saying there is a room temperature source of iron microspheres in the remains?

No, they are merely pointing out that IRON MICROSPHERES does not ONLY EQUAL Thermite.

Come on man, don't be a stonehead.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't know.

This subject shift is a denial tactic. The point here is the iron spheres and the vaporized lead occurred during the 9/11 event.

No, I think all you can say based on your quote, is that SOME of the iron microspheres likely occurred during the event. I have no problem with this. Just like you can produce the iron microspheres through grinding and welding (through local high temps), the friction of steel columns on each other as they struck each other could have done so. As well, they could have been formed during the impact of the planes with the towers. As well, they could have been formed by many, MANY other causes.

There is likely MORE evidence for all of the examples I have provided, then there is for the presence of thermite.

OCCAM wins.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The temperatures that vaporized lead can only be explained by thermite. Thermite was found in the WTC dust and your denial of this is just denial. There were two authors from BYU listed on that paper, Dr. Farrer (as second author) and Daniel Farnsworth. Their affiliation with the BYU Department of Physics and Astronomy was listed in the paper, with the approval of BYU.

I have bolded your unproven lies. Care to defend them. Jones' et al and their poor excuse for a paper, with its plethora of methodological errors and unproven/unduplicated results is not considered proof here.

So (A) prove the ONLY way one can vaporize lead is through thermite, and (B) prove (without the Jones "paper") that there was thermite in the debris, or simply (C) admit you misspoke.

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

No! Continuing to say this does not make it true. Show your proof that "thermite" could do this or STFU (your phrase I believe).

Thermite burns at 4500^oF. That is more than hot enough to vaporize lead at 3182^oF.

 

[T.A.M.]

oh I would be interested in the proof of vaporized lead as well...while you are at it.

TAM