• 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.

Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

Christopher7 said:
Nay, nay, says the denier. Here is a list of reasons why I don't believe the thermite paper is valid. Here is a list of reasons why I don't believe Steven Jones.

Haven't seen your list of reasons why y'all don't believe Neils Harrit and Dr. Farrer yet but I'm sure you have one.

The iron spheres are the result of molten iron being atomized into tiny droplets, one quarter the width of a human hair, with explosives. They made up nearly 6% of the WTC dust.

No one has come up with a viable alternate explanation for the abundance of iron spheres inside and on top of the Bankers Trust building. Any microscopic spheres from cutting would not be carried, like spheres in the dust cloud from the collapses, to the interior and roof of a building several hundred feet away.
Click to expand...

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

TAM:)
 
Christopher7 said:
...
pg 21 continues:
...The presence of lead oxides on the surface of
mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead
would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the
surface of mineral wool. ...
Click to expand...

Notice how they still don't say "boiling"?

When I got water in my kitchen at 100°C, I call it "boiling". It is only below boiling temperature that people talk of "vaporizing".
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The editor in chief is, among other things, in charge of making sure the peer-review process is not compromised.

If a paper is published without even the chief editor's knowledge, then the peer-review is in high doubt.
In fact, AFAIK, we do not know at all if and how the ****** Harriet/Jones paper was reviewed.
Basically, Bentham Open is a venue where you pay to publish. If your check goes through, there is some obvious incentive for the publisher to be less than strict about peer review.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I count 13 items in that list.
Where are the other 399987?
 
Christopher7 said:
...you consistently defame anyone presenting evidence that disproves the OCT...
Click to expand...

That is a true statement.

Equally true as the statements
- ...you consistently play charades with anyone presenting evidence that disproves the OCT...
- ...you sleep with anyone presenting evidence that disproves the OCT...
- ...you pay anyone presenting evidence that disproves the OCT a million bucks...



Because, you see, in set theory, any statement about the elements of an empty set is, by definition, true.
The set of people who present evidence that disproves the OCT is empty.
 
Christopher7 said:
...
It was reviewed by the reviewers. Editors assign articles to reviewers who actually do the reviewing.
Click to expand...

Right. And this particular editor did not assign reviewers to the Harriet/Jones paper.

Therefore, it was not properly peer-reviewed.

BTW, how do you think an editor could assign a qualified reviewer if he or she did not read the paper first to see what it is all about?
 
Christopher7 said:
...
The iron spheres are the result of molten iron being atomized into tiny droplets, one quarter the width of a human hair, with explosives...
Click to expand...

Urrr wait wait wait!
Out of whose arse did you pull these explosives now?
A little earlier it was still thermate - now all of a sudden explosives??
Hello??
 
Christopher7 said:
Are you supposing that steel beams and columns grinding together would cause the abundance of microspheres? That's very creative but where is the data to show that actually happens?
Click to expand...

Just explaining to you that your assertion "only thermate can do this" is baseless and wrong.
Are you supposing that a lot of grinding did not take place during the collapse?
You need to realize that dust hardly ever settles in uniform composition. If you find a high concentration of a dust component in one corner, it does not mean by a longshot that this component was so abundant everywhere.


Christopher7 said:
Imagine that. Perhaps it's because they were not looking for thermite or nano-thermite. They focused on MMVF [man-made vitreous fibers] like the USGS report.
Click to expand...

There was no reason to, as that paper I refered to was about wear and grinding and thermate was out of the question anyway.
Just showing you that iron-rich microspheres form by grinding, among many other processes. Burning wood is another. Producing fly ash as is used in conccrete is another.

You hopefully have by now abandoned the silly idea that the moment someone finds microspheres, thermate must have burnt?
 
Christopher7 said:
You are playing with semantics. The beam melted.
Click to expand...

No. YOU are playing the semantics.
When they say "liquified", I would take them at their word and mean "liquified". You play the semantics trick and claim it means "melted", when in fact it is distinctly possible it did NOT mean that, as melting is only ONE way that things can be liquified.
 
Oystein said:
I count 13 items in that list.
Where are the other 399987?
Click to expand...

I think what he is saying is that all of the 400,000 particles fell into one of those classifications, which i find pretty silly.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
I think what he is saying is that all of the 400,000 particles fell into one of those classifications, which i find pretty silly.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't help us much anyway.
Therm&te is a mixed powder that contains distinct kinds of particles, among them rust and aluminium.
No doubt they found both of these. Might as well have found any number of compounds that contained rust and things. You could find these if you scratch arounnd in my basement.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

according to this source http://www.tackleunderground.com/community/topic/9969-lead-melting-safety-and-techniques/

lead gives of fumes from about 1100F

and this site says even just melting it gives of lead fumes

http://www.kdheks.gov/ables/occupation.html

that was from 60 seconds googling "melting lead safety"....you can plough through the 1.7 million hits if you like.........

As for "iron" spheres....I take it you have never arc welded?......they get everywhere. The are not in office dust because not much welding occurs in offices :) but the are all over the steel framing and are exposed in any fire/collapse.
 
Oystein said:
Wouldn't help us much anyway.
Therm&te is a mixed powder that contains distinct kinds of particles, among them rust and aluminium.
No doubt they found both of these. Might as well have found any number of compounds that contained rust and things. You could find these if you scratch arounnd in my basement.
Click to expand...

So you were in on it. You had thermite in your Basement!!!!!!
 
Oystein said:
Notice how they still don't say "boiling"?

When I got water in my kitchen at 100°C, I call it "boiling". It is only below boiling temperature that people talk of "vaporizing".
Click to expand...

The reason he is confused is because he watches too much science fiction and vaporising means atomised by some kind of energy beam :p
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
phunk said:
The melting point of sugar is about 185C. Water mixed with sugar is a liquid. Does that mean it was heated to 185C?
Click to expand...

No, but you also don't have liquid sugar. Tasty aqueous solution though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom