Merged "Iron-rich spheres" - scienctific explanation?

[000063]

MY position is irrelevant. An attorney defends his client regardless of his belief on the responsibility in the crime or the gruesomeness of it. I don't let my lack of belief in 911 truth to interfere. For me it is not a personal fight. It is an exercise in reasoning. Haven't you caught on to that yet?

Yet you seem remarkably loath to do any, and content to find justifications for Truther theories. The black bar at the top of the page says "skepticism, critical thinking". Haven't you caught on to that yet?

Many Truthers claim that the presence of such microspheres can only be indicative of thermite. Which is is not. What was that you were saying about making things up?

Actually the lack of presence of Fe microspheres would certainly rule out the use of thermite. Which is what you seek to achieve, ruling out thermite. The presence of such FE particles allows for the use of thermite. It DOES NOT conclusively prove its usage, but it allows for its usage to have occurred. That is, starting off with the theory of controlled demolition the prime requisite is some controllable device (aka explosive) to be used. If you can rule that out by the lack of Fe microspheres which would be a tell tale sign, then you score against CD. But you can, because while the source of Fe microspheres can be other than thermite it could be thermite as well, leaving the door open for CD.

I highlighted the reason Noah is googly-eyed. Thermite is not an explosive. Including it or its derivatives in an explosive does not make it Schrodinger's Charge, both explosive and non-explosive at once.

 

[Java Man]

Wait, wait, wait...I assumed your claim was true, and pointed out it didn't matter worth a toss, and you're using that as example of how debunkers frequently make things up?

Yes I am. Exactly

 

[Java Man]

I highlighted the reason Noah is googly-eyed. Thermite is not an explosive. Including it or its derivatives in an explosive does not make it Schrodinger's Charge, both explosive and non-explosive at once.

Well maybe you or Noah could bring forth an explanation as to what defines an explosive and what not. Instead of googly eyeing, which seems rather immature. I notice you and Noah joined about the time I quit posting here about a year ago so I guess we haven't become acquainted yet, but we will. You'll see why some of my posts will seem googly-eyable at times. Just try to keep focus on your position so I don't make you bite your own tail.

 

[Oystein]

Actually the lack of presence of Fe microspheres would certainly rule out the use of thermite. Which is what you seek to achieve, ruling out thermite.

No. I don't want to rule out thermite any more than I want to rule out space lasers, nuclear bombs or an army of midgets with saws. All these could be used to demolish towers, but no evidence exists that this happened. So even if we could show that thermite AND lasers AND nuclear weapons AND an armny of midges with saws had all been present on 9/11, none of this would bring us one step closer to figuring out how and why the towers collapsed. What did bring us much further was another idea: That maby, just maybe, planes and fires did it. And now guess what: There were planes! And there were fires! And the collapses started just were the planes hit and the fires raged!

The presence of such FE particles allows for the use of thermite. It DOES NOT conclusively prove its usage, but it allows for its usage to have occurred. That is, starting off with the theory of controlled demolition ...

... i.e. with assuming the conclusion ...

... the prime requisite is some controllable device (aka explosive) to be used.

No, the prime requisite is to prove there was a demolition.
There wasn't.

If you can rule that out by the lack of Fe microspheres which would be a tell tale sign, then you score against CD.

That's called a sufficient, but not necessary condition. Smart investigators usually go for the necessary condition. Such as prove that any steel members showed signs of failure mode other than those that come from overloading and/or heat of hydrocarbon fire.

But you can, because while the source of Fe microspheres can be other than thermite it could be thermite as well, leaving the door open for CD.

There is no door for CD to be left open, because no one has managed to open it yet to start with.

 

[Oystein]

Well, I admitted I was wrong to assume Java was right without checking. Does that count?

Absolutely *offers some chips*

Actually, this whole thing is a red herring to avoid addressing the substance of the post.

Absolutely

 

[The Almond]

Actually the lack of presence of Fe microspheres would certainly rule out the use of thermite.

False. The Fe microspheres will be present both with and without thermite. Thus they cannot be used as evidence for or against thermite.

Which is what you seek to achieve, ruling out thermite.

Actually, my goal is to evaluate the data as they are presented. I have nothing against thermite. I have something against charlatans who produce a document contains inaccuracies, falsehoods, poor quantitative methods and an absence of quality control, and then proceed to call it science.

The presence of such FE particles allows for the use of thermite. It DOES NOT conclusively prove its usage, but it allows for its usage to have occurred. That is, starting off with the theory of controlled demolition the prime requisite is some controllable device (aka explosive) to be used. If you can rule that out by the lack of Fe microspheres which would be a tell tale sign, then you score against CD. But you can, because while the source of Fe microspheres can be other than thermite it could be thermite as well, leaving the door open for CD.

Once again: The Fe microspheres will be there with or without thermite. Not finding them does not imply a lack of explosives. In fact, they can't even be used as evidence of a fire, since such microspheres are ubiquitous in urban environments. They are the byproducts of the burning of diesel fuel, welding fumes and ordinary combustion of wood and paper products.

Consider this: What evidence is available to prove General relativity?

1) Einstein's mathematical derivation
2) Visible evidence of gravitational lensing
3) The fact that GPS wouldn't work without it

Numbers 1 & 2 represent strong evidence for General Relativity. Number 3 is, at best, weak evidence. Consider framing the argument as, "Well, GPS works, and GPS wouldn't work without General Relativity, so General Relativity must be right." In truth, the reason GPS works so well is that the devices are making a relativistic correction, but that doesn't mean it is the only reason why GPS works. In fact, GPS would still work (albiet with far less accuracy) without it.

You are making a weak argument. The argument is centered on the idea that the Fe oxide discovered by Harrit et al could be thermite. Without proving that it is or must be thermite, the argument falls completely on its ass. Let me provide some examples of strong evidence for thermite or some super duper nano magic material:

1) Prove that the material will combust in a non-reducing atmosphere such as Ar or N2
2) Prove that the material, when applied to steel in coatings of less than 1 mm in thickness will heat the steel over 100 C when ignited
3) Prove the presence of elemental Al using X-ray diffraction

Can you see how those bits would provide strong evidence for thermite? And yet, this is what, after 11 years, the Truth movement has so spectacularly failed to provide.

 

[NoahFence]

Well maybe you or Noah could bring forth an explanation as to what defines an explosive and what not. Instead of googly eyeing, which seems rather immature. I notice you and Noah joined about the time I quit posting here about a year ago so I guess we haven't become acquainted yet, but we will. You'll see why some of my posts will seem googly-eyable at times. Just try to keep focus on your position so I don't make you bite your own tail.

What defines an explosive?

Well, it's gotta go BOOM for one. That rules out thermite, and all of its permutations that truthers will invent. What also rules out thermite, is the fact that none was found.

 

[Java Man]

No. I don't want to rule out thermite any more than I want to rule out space lasers, nuclear bombs or an army of midgets with saws.

You've been doing good all along, don't discredit yourself with statements like these.

That's called a sufficient, but not necessary condition. Smart investigators usually go for the necessary condition.

Wrong. Smart investigators usually go with the sufficient condition. Since once that is achieved all other conditions are unnecessary. That's why it is called "sufficient" because it is sufficient enough on its own. Necessary conditions are required, but not sufficient on their own. Thus smart investigators look for the sufficient over the necessary as arriving to a sufficient one saves them from looking into possibly many necessary.

 

[Java Man]

What defines an explosive?

Well, it's gotta go BOOM for one. That rules out thermite, and all of its permutations that truthers will invent. What also rules out thermite, is the fact that none was found.

With posts like that you're in for a treat. Let me guess. You're Chewie's brother?

 

[Java Man]

False. The Fe microspheres will be present both with and without thermite. Thus they cannot be used as evidence for or against thermite.

Then why are you using them as an argument against thermite if in your own words it "cannot be used as evidence for or against thermite." ?

 

[The Almond]

Then why are you using them as an argument against thermite if in your own words it "cannot be used as evidence for or against thermite." ?

I'm not arguing against thermite. Arguing against thermite is what the no-planers, mini-nukers, and space beamers do. What I'm saying is that the evidence for thermite is bunk, crap, garbage or otherwise. That's why I don't take the thermite stuff seriously. I'm fully aware that I can't prove a negative, and I have been consistent in calling for Truthers to put up some reasonable evidence for thermite.

 

[tfk]

It seems to be the point of this thread that some sort of high energy burning device was used given the presence of certain type of metal residue commonly referred to as "iron-rich spheres".

The debunker position is that no high energy burning device was used given the abundance of similar metal residue in other fires.

No, not "high energy".

Energy scales with the mass of the material melted. These are micro-spheres to nano-spheres. The energy required to melt such tiny volumes is, in fact, tiny.

Of course, this energy requirement is merely a "minimum". This amount or more will do the trick.

It has been thought that very high temperatures, around the melting point of bulk steel (~1550°C) were required to produce these microspheres. Fires (~1100°C) were thought unlikely to be able to do the trick on their own.

But, as has been recently shown, very small iron & iron alloy spheres can be produced as much lower temperatures (down to 200°C) than the bulk melting temperature.

So, now we're down to low energy, moderate temperature (400 - 1000°C), along with a source of lots of iron or iron alloy fine dust or small flakes.

The energy requirements are right smack dab in the middle of the energy supplied by fires. The iron/iron alloy dust & flakes are exactly what were produced in the collapses of the buildings.

Mysteries are evaporating.

tk

 

[Oystein]

...
Wrong. Smart investigators usually go with the sufficient condition. Since once that is achieved all other conditions are unnecessary. That's why it is called "sufficient" because it is sufficient enough on its own. Necessary conditions are required, but not sufficient on their own. Thus smart investigators look for the sufficient over the necessary as arriving to a sufficient one saves them from looking into possibly many necessary.

Thermite would be a sufficient explanation for the iron-rich spheres. But that is not what we are looking for. Because it is not the only sufficient explanation. Another: Hydrocarbon fires. Equally sufficient.

So how do we know which of these explanations is the right one, or perhaps both are right?

If you want to argue for thermite, you need to find a sufficient condition that would proof thermite. But again, there could potentially be several sufficient conditions to prove thermite, but which one should we go looking for?

It might be smarter to instead formulate as necessary condition, and formulate it as a falsifiable hypothesis. That would be science then: If you manage to falsify the hypothesis, you can rule out that the necessary condition is true, and that would kill thermite.



But smartie, I have an idea for you:


What would be a sufficient condition to prove the presence of thermite?

We could then discuss if that condition can be shown to be fulfilled.
Hint: Microspheres are NOT sufficient.

 

[NoahFence]

With posts like that you're in for a treat. Let me guess. You're Chewie's brother?

I have no idea what that even means.

I do note, however, that you (as expected) didn't actually say I was wrong.

Telling.

 

[000063]

Yes I am. Exactly

So assuming you have any idea what you're talking about is "making things up".

Okay.

Well maybe you or Noah could bring forth an explanation as to what defines an explosive and what not. Instead of googly eyeing, which seems rather immature. I notice you and Noah joined about the time I quit posting here about a year ago so I guess we haven't become acquainted yet, but we will. You'll see why some of my posts will seem googly-eyable at times. Just try to keep focus on your position so I don't make you bite your own tail.

No.

You brought up explosives in your hypothetical. If you think there's a deficiency in your knowledge, say so. Don't try to bait people into providing explanations for you to nitpick. Ergo has me on ignore, buddy, you're small time.

Incidentally, this is me not assuming you know what you're talking about.

Explosives strong enough to do the job would produce noticable effects, such as killing people who were feet away from them. They would be audible across Manhattan, if not New York. Buildings for blocks around would have shattered windows. And they can't survive the crashes.

The thermite theories came about because Truthers realized they couldn't explain what happened with explosives. When it turned out to have its own problems, it became Schrodinger's Explosive; able to have the properties of an explosive or thermite as the evidence demands.

 

[Java Man]

But smartie, I have an idea for you:


What would be a sufficient condition to prove the presence of thermite?

We could then discuss if that condition can be shown to be fulfilled.
Hint: Microspheres are NOT sufficient.

Ha! But I don't have to prove that. The point is microspheres do not rule out the usage of thermite or other product used to cut or weaken the structure. Had there been no trace of microspheres then explaining the usage of thermite or similar products would be very difficult.

 

[Java Man]

Explosives strong enough to do the job would produce noticable effects, such as killing people who were feet away from them. They would be audible across Manhattan, if not New York. Buildings for blocks around would have shattered windows. And they can't survive the crashes.

No not really. Charges well placed would reduce the intensity required to do the job. WTC 7 was evacuated before it fell so there was nobody feet away for them to kill and no airplane crashed into WTC 7. So explosives would not have been compromised.

 

[grandmastershek]

No not really. Charges well placed would reduce the intensity required to do the job. WTC 7 was evacuated before it fell so there was nobody feet away for them to kill and no airplane crashed into WTC 7. So explosives would not have been compromised.

Sorry, but no one has been able to present any form of evidence to support the hush boom hypothesis. Fact is that these would have been the largest explosive demo projects on the planet. Don;t forget the exposions were powerful enough to eject steel "hundreds of feet" yet the sounds of these explosions did not propagate through the air with the steel they were allegedly pushing; must be more of those magic explosives. People were inside and right under the towers. 0 explosions recorded at collapse. 0 injuries specific to explosives. People were a few blocks away from 7 with direct line of sight, same deal.

Reduce =/= unrecordable. Like the rest of truthdom, please familiarize yourself with Occam's Razor.

 

[GlennB]

No not really. Charges well placed would reduce the intensity required to do the job.

Placing charges well is exactly what CD companies do. In their own time, in plain sight, unhindered by building occupants and after stripping off all coverings and pre-weakening the steel columns.

With all these advantages the explosions are still deafening. If they're not they won't do their job. But you know this already, I suspect.

 

[Java Man]

Don;t forget the exposions were powerful enough to eject steel "hundreds of feet" yet the sounds of these explosions did not propagate through the air with the steel they were allegedly pushing;

Where do you get this stuff??? Explosive did not have to eject steel. Much less so for "hundreds of feet". They just needed to cut it.