• 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.

On Experiencing Jim Fetzer

Therefore, Pomeroo, when you say "No steel was "dustified"--that's ZERO steel." I don't think you can prove that, its probably NOT true, and it's NOT the way to win an argument with the likes of Ace Baker.

METAL DUSTING IS A RECOGNIZED PHENOMENON INVOLVING CO, or more precisely CARBON MONOXIDE/HYDROGEN MIXTURES...

This is not what Ace Baker is talking about, for sure, but "metal dusting" probably occurred in the Twin Towers in oxygen starved regions in the fire-affected zones.

BOTH SIDES ARE ABUSING SCIENCE HERE!

Well, I'm ready to learn something. I hope you'll give us an introduction to metal dusting and relate it to the collapse of the Twin Towers. Sure, I was being careless using the word "zero," but we should bear in mind that all the steel was recovered. Now, the word "all" doesn't really mean 100%, but it does mean that virtually all of the steel was recovered. Ace claims, fatuously, that 80% was missing. Not as much as 10% was missing. I'd bet that not as much as 5% was missing. Do you think that as much as 2% was missing? Where did it go?

When you write that "both sides are abusing science here," one side is guilty of imprecision, while the other is making up fantastic nonsense. Do we really have a moral equivalence?
 
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
Dealers estimated that the WTC disaster created more than 300,000 tons of scrap metal.
This next quote alone proves Ace Baker incredibly wrong:
http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm
Baosteel Group, the nation's largest steel firm, has purchased 50,000 tons of the scrap steel from "Ground Zero," the ruins of the September 11 terrorist attack, at no more than US$120 each ton, according to yesterday's Beijing Youth Daily.

50,000 tons is roughly 1/2 of one of the towers. How do you explain that Ace Baker?
 
One possibility is that beams tuned to a particular frequency, or with a certain interference pattern are able to selectively excite target molecules, reversing the polarity and liberating the chemical bond energy that is already present.

Chemical bond energy is energy that is "liberated" (made available) when the chemical bonds form. Breaking chemical bonds, in other words, costs energy, it doesn't liberate energy. That's why we call a stronger chemical bond "stronger," because it takes more energy to break it. "Liberating chemical bond energy by breaking bonds" makes no more sense than "liberating gravitational potential energy by raising heavy weights higher."

However, if the military has discovered a way of reversing this rule, and thereby liberating energy by breaking chemical bonds, then all the world's energy problems are solved. Since we already know how to get energy by forming stronger chemical bonds (such as, by combining hydrogen and oxygen into H20), and now they've figured out how to get energy by breaking chemical bonds, unlimited free energy is now available. Even if the dustification mechanism doesn't release any usable energy, even if all it does is reduce the energy needed to break chemical bonds, it still amounts to unlimited free energy over the whole cycle.

A second possibility is that said energy beam is able to liberate nuclear energy, converting mass to energy according to E=mc^2. In both cases, a relatively small energy input can yeild a huge energy output.

Hooray! This possibility solves the world's energy problems too! Direct mass to energy conversion. Nuclear energy without radiation. Levitating cities, personal jet-cars, Mars bases, thermostats at 75 degrees F all winter, basement lights that don't even need off switches, here we come!

A third possibiity is that the 19th century scientists were right about the aether after all, and that all of the universe is seething in free energy, and "they" have figured out a way to make use of it.

Even better still! Free energy without any messy chemical bond rearranging or nuclear reactions, just a gift from a generous universe! Thank goodness we didn't believe those depressing 20th century scientists with their silly equations and useless "semiconductors" and absurd "atomic clocks" and ridiculous "lasers" and preposterous "microwaves" and all the other worthless stuff they claimed to invent based on those so-called "laws of physics."

Now, please explain why this new source of unlimited energy has, so far, only been used to fake an attack to justify a war to steal oil, oil which of course is about to become completely worthless. That makes about as much sense as inventing a time machine, and using it only to return overdue library books without paying the fine.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Both sides are abusing science - that's already too much abuse.

Pomeroo and Ace Baker should know better!

THIS IS NOT A GAME!
 
Last edited:
Both sides are abusing science - that's already too much.

As Ron has already shown you, one side is willing to learn and make amends and state things correctly. Do you get that feeling from any of the discussions you've have with Fetzer, Frank? Which side seems more in concert with the scientific method?
 
As Ron has already shown you, one side is willing to learn and make amends and state things correctly. Do you get that feeling from any of the discussions you've have with Fetzer, Frank? Which side seems more in concert with the scientific method?

Definitely not NIST. They started with a conclusion and worked backwards to get the data to fit it.

Steven Jones may be wrong but his treatment is far more scientific.
 
Both sides are abusing science - that's already too much.


When presented with corrected arguments, which side is more likely to accept the corrections and have them incorporated into their theories? If a person can accept new information as presented and change their argument to accomodate this information, I would say that this is not an abuse of science at all, but an excellent example of the scientific method in action.

So with this in mind, of the posters on this thread, which has displayed more fidelity to science?


ETA: Darn, boloboffin beat me to it.
 
Both sides are abusing science - that's already too much abuse.

Pomeroo and Ace Baker should know better!

THIS IS NOT A GAME!



You're right, Frank: it isn't a game.

I should know better; Ace shouldn't. Now, do you think as much as 2% of the steel was missing? Tell us about metal dusting.
 
Definitely not NIST. They started with a conclusion and worked backwards to get the data to fit it.

Steven Jones may be wrong but his treatment is far more scientific.


Mike Newman of NIST says that the conspiracists who pretend that NIST "started with a conclusion" are liars. He told me over the phone that Fetzer should tell him exactly what sort of "pressure" the agency was under to produce a particular conclusion. How was it applied?

What is your reason for slandering the scientists at NIST with your unsubstantiated charge?
 
Both sides are abusing science - that's already too much abuse.

Pomeroo and Ace Baker should know better!

THIS IS NOT A GAME!
Then I humbly suggest you stop playing yours. You are becoming a hero to people who accuse innocent people of mass murder. I agree, this is not a game Dr. Greening. Please consider how your words are emboldening the CTists. I think you can make your points without encouraging CTists.
 
Metal dusting is the catastrophic high temperature carburization of steel which leads to the disintegration of Fe, Ni and Co-based alloys with the creation of particles containing iron and carbon, mostly as cementite Fe3C.
 
Mike Newman of NIST says that the conspiracists who pretend that NIST "started with a conclusion" are liars. He told me over the phone that Fetzer should tell him exactly what sort of "pressure" the agency was under to produce a particular conclusion. How was it applied?

What is your reason for slandering the scientists at NIST with your unsubstantiated charge?

Maybe this Mike Newman of NIST should get some courage and enter the debate like other scientists have. Why doesn't he join up here?
 
Metal dusting is the catastrophic high temperature carburization of steel which leads to the disintegration of Fe, Ni and Co-based alloys with the creation of particles containing iron and carbon, mostly as cementite Fe3C.
The breakdown of the steel into its constinuants would result in an equal mass of metal dust, correct? Going back to Ace's claim; if 80% of the steel had been "dustified" we would still have the mass of the steel, just in dust form rather than its original form, yes?
 

Back
Top Bottom