Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

chrismohr said:
Wow. Argument over. Thanks Ron Wieck for getting such a clear answer from Rich Lee. I just added it to my YouTube video number 9 on iron-rich spheres.
Click to expand...
I just watched your video #9 and there is no reference to the RJ Lee letter. Did you remove it?
 
Fly Poster said:
Even were you to provide data, this is irrelevent, I personally think there is more information in the summary of the RJ Lee report to refute C7, than the recent letter:

Here we can see that RJ Lee states the dust consisted of matter created during the event, including collapse, fires before and after the collapse, and from the fallout, and contain flyash. - which is why it is irrelevant to claim the spheres would be carried away in the smoke, the fallout contaminates the area.
Click to expand...
That was an intelligent, relevant post, thank you.

As you might expect, I disagree with your conclusion that "most of the iron spheres created during the fires left the building with the smoke" is NOT irrelevant. It means that most of the iron spheres were created during the destruction and afterward. You imply that some of the dust in the bank building was deposited during the clean up. This is an assertion that iron microspheres can be carried on a breeze and therefore acknowledging that they would be carried away in the strong updraft that a fire creates.

I further argue that the vast majority of the dust found the the bank building was deposited by the dust cloud from the collapse of the towers that forced dust into the bank building under pressure.
 
Christopher7 said:
You are talking about what everyone here does with evidence of explosions - they never ever mean explosives.
Click to expand...
Nope. They do not always mean explosives, and in this case, none of the characteristics of explosives were present, even where they should've been.

And molten steel - they are all mistaken....
Click to expand...
Nope. Claims of molten steel in fires do not always mean what was seen was actually steel, and it is, in fact, impossible to tell the difference by eye. You're only accepting both of these as proof positive because they support your case.

Gosh, you sound just like Ergo. Is that the level you want to sink to?
 
000063 said:
Earlier on JREF...
​
You said "will". Not "may", not "can", not "will likely", not "will possibly", you made an absolute, unqualified statement. I'm not sure if you're backpedaling or if you honestly believe what you're spouting, but if you said something other than what you meant, it's no one's fault but yours.
Click to expand...

Christopher7 said:
I was wrong about that but you are not willing to admit when you are wrong.....
Click to expand...

Well, that's ironic. Odd that you did not respond to the post proving you unarguably wrong. It's almost as if you don't admit you are wrong.

Weird how something that's "unproven" can be a certainty depending solely on whether or not it supports your position.
 
Thread statistics

This thread is amazing.

I started it on 4 oct 2010 - one and a half years ago.
It generated some good replies on the very first day, on page 1:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6403771&postcount=13
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6403798&postcount=14
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6403816&postcount=15
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6404221&postcount=16
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6404455&postcount=19
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405002&postcount=23
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405389&postcount=25
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405547&postcount=28
and the next day, still page 1:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6405992&postcount=35

Then, early omnm page 2/day 2, the thread went dormant, the last post being #42.

So that's 21 posts/day over a period of 2 days. I think at least 9 of these are pretty good - disregarding my own 9 posts, that's 9/33 = 27% good posts. Pretty nice ratio!


Then notorious troll walkyrie revived the thread on 13 mar 2011, five months later. Truthers/trolls Java Man and Senemut chime in. Predictably, thread deteriorates, even though a few posters manage to remind everyone of a a few suggestions already made on page 1. The Almond nicely summarizes it:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6973630&postcount=70
Useless quarrel with Senemut continues to post #107, while nothing new is learned.
Then thread goes dormant again, on 15 mar 2001, having added 65 new posts in 3 days (22/day)


Then, on 25 jan 2012, truther/troll superlogicalthinker revives thread and posts #108.
Now all hell breaks loose!
It is now 09 mar 2012, 44 days later, and post count is 1965. 42/day for one and a half months.

Christopher7 alone added 282 posts, sheeplesnshills 159, superlogicalthinker 133 until he was banned, NoahFence and Edx 121 each.
Interestingly, those poster that probably added the best content are among those with the fewest posts:
BasqueArch 43
Sunstealer 33
The Almond 23
Myriad 17
ElMondoHummus 7


Question: What have we learned during these past 1858 posts that wasn't already said on page 1? The only new development really is that we have direct and personal communication from RJ Lee that repeats that microspheres formed in the office fire that raged in the twin towers.

Did I miss anything?
 
Christopher7 said:
That was an intelligent, relevant post, thank you.

As you might expect, I disagree with your conclusion that "most of the iron spheres created during the fires left the building with the smoke" is NOT irrelevant. It means that most of the iron spheres were created during the destruction and afterward. You imply that some of the dust in the bank building was deposited during the clean up. This is an assertion that iron microspheres can be carried on a breeze and therefore acknowledging that they would be carried away in the strong updraft that a fire creates.

I further argue that the vast majority of the dust found the the bank building was deposited by the dust cloud from the collapse of the towers that forced dust into the bank building under pressure.
Click to expand...
Correction:
I disagree with your conclusion that "most of the iron spheres created during the fires left the building with the smoke" is irrelevant.
 
Christopher7 said:
That was an intelligent, relevant post, thank you.

As you might expect, I disagree with your conclusion that "most of the iron spheres created during the fires left the building with the smoke" is NOT relevant. It means that most of the iron spheres were created during the destruction and afterward. You imply that some of the dust in the bank building was deposited during the clean up. This is an assertion that iron microspheres can be carried on a breeze and therefore acknowledging that they would be carried away in the strong updraft that a fire creates....
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure you're conflating two things again. Just because X can be affected by one sort of condition does not mean that it can be affected by Y, even if the two are similar.

You have not proven your claim, ever, and now you're trying to interpret the arguments of people who disagree with you as support.

You will continue to ignore 1964 and my calling out of your straw man.
 
Again...has Chris bothered to email RJ Lee yet to let them know someone is misrepresenting them? I'll take his avoidance of the questions as admittance of what we already know, Chris could care less about the facts and more about maintaining his beliefs.
 
grandmastershek said:
Again...has Chris bothered to email RJ Lee yet to let them know someone is misrepresenting them? I'll take his avoidance of the questions as admittance of what we already know, Chris could care less about the facts and more about maintaining his beliefs.
Click to expand...

He has said he emailed them, but I doubt he mentioned that he thinks someone they hired is an idiot or a government shill making absurd claims in the name of RJ Lee.
 
Oystein said:
Question: What have we learned during these past 1858 posts that wasn't already said on page 1? The only new development really is that we have direct and personal communication from RJ Lee that repeats that microspheres formed in the office fire that raged in the twin towers.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Any word on when we might hear back from RJ Lee? I, for one, am very interested in their answers to clarify their letter.
 
ChrisMohr said:
The Rich Lee microspheres letter was added to the verbal "Description" section of the YouTube video 9 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev48qEO9SyU and then a reference to this was prominently posted at the beginning of the video, as soon as I start talking.
Click to expand...
The letter is not personally addressed to anyone. It seems odd that he would use the familiar "Rich" on a public statement, which the letter actually is.
 
Oystein said:
...Question: What have we learned during these past 1858 posts that wasn't already said on page 1? The only new development really is that we have direct and personal communication from RJ Lee that repeats that microspheres formed in the office fire that raged in the twin towers.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...
You missed nothing of any consequence. This thread is the primary reason why I rank C7 as the most effective troll currently posting. He puts a lot of effort into his posts - especially he includes a lot of sciency looking material. But the net result is zero progress as you have identified. And he is so good at it I would expect many members to disagree with my judgement that it is trolling. :rolleyes:
 
alienentity said:
Why is this discussion still going on?
Click to expand...

Well it is still going on due to the forum rule design. Which some would say is inherently flawed. Because it tends to distract the "truther" (on whom the burden of proof lands) from following his argument. This is done by cleverly making him have to present proof for arguments which are not his or hers.

Basically put the "truther" has to defend:

B given A, typically "this occurred because we see: such and such"

The "sceptics" then simply come and say:

Not B given C, typically "but it could have been some other like ....", thus leading a an appalling amount of "Not B given C" statements. These statements are automatically taken for true given that the burden does not land on the "sceptics". Yet it doesn't end there, the "truther" is then made to disprove "Not B given C" or what would be equivalent prove "Not C given B", but that's not the "truther's" statement. His original statement is "B given A" and that is to which he is bound to provide proof. But the threads usually get tied up around "Not B given C".
 
Last edited:
ergo said:
Any word on when we might hear back from RJ Lee? I, for one, am very interested in their answers to clarify their letter.
Click to expand...

Once we get that clarification we can ask for another clarification and so on ad infinitum.
 
Java Man said:
Well it is still going on due to the forum rule design. Which some would say is inherently flawed. Because it tends to distract the "truther" (on whom the burden of proof lands) from following his argument. This is done by cleverly making him have to present proof for arguments which are not his or hers.

Basically put the "truther" has to defend:

B given A, typically "this occurred because we see: such and such"

The "sceptics" then simply come and say:

Not B given C, typically "but it could have been some other like ....", thus leading a an appalling amount of "Not B given C" statements. These statements are automatically taken for true given that the burden does not land on the "sceptics". Yet it doesn't end there, the "truther" is then made to disprove "Not B given C" or what would be equivalent prove "Not C given B", but that's not the "truther's" statement. His original statement is "B given A" and that is to which he is bound to provide proof. But the threads usually get tied up around "Not B given C".
Click to expand...


If A is "thermite", B is "iron-rich microspheres", and C is "ample evidence on multiple mutually reinforcing lines that iron-rich microspheres are common and expected in fires," then that is indeed a problem for the truther argument "A given B."

However, that "problem" has nothing to do with the forum rule design. It's how critical thinking -- and in particular, practical diagnosis of causes -- works. Medical students, for instance, are taught: "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras."

Hoofbeats = a common symptom = iron-rich microspheres = B
Horses = a common, likely, and reliable cause of the symptom = fire = C
Zebras = a rare, unlikely, or uncertain cause of the symptom = thermite = A

So yeah, a truther who wants to claim an exotic explanation (thermite) for a common observation (iron-rich spheres) while disregarding a known common explanation (fire) will likely be asked to justify doing so. Do you really think that's a problem?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
So yeah, a truther who wants to claim an exotic explanation (thermite) for a common observation (iron-rich spheres) while disregarding a known common explanation (fire) will likely be asked to justify doing so. Do you really think that's a problem?
Click to expand...

Yet when the WTC7 collapse is challenged on the basis that no other steel structure has collapsed due to fire alone it is disregarded. So "common observation" is valid with iron-rich spheres, but not so with steel buildings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom