First and foremost, this is not my hypothesis. If it were, I would have gone about supporting it in a much different way.
You're promoting the thermite/ate/öte hypothesis to the exclusion of others, therefore it is your theory. You don't have to be its inventor.
Secondly, you made a fallacy in determining what evidence is and isn't.
Actually, no. Since you're apparently new to logical fallacies, I'll help you understand where you made your mistakes.
Sulfur is not evidence of thermate because other explanations for sulfur are
legion. The fallacy is actually yours, and it's called "Affirming the Consequent." The fallacy goes like this:
Proposed: If there was a dragon in my garage, there would be no room for a car.
Fact: There is no room in my garage for a car.
Assertion: Therefore, there must be a dragon in my garage.
There is, of course, no dragon in my garage. It's just messy.
Other causes of the sulfur cannot be ruled out, and indeed they haven't been. There are lots of them. They are also far more likely than therma/i/öte, as I explained before. So, again, this is not evidence. It isn't me arbitrarily deciding this.
For your next fallacy: What you think is evidence is presented as a kind of
Fallacy of necessity, or in other words, asserting as absolutely true things that you merely suspect, without basis:
Again, thermate like residue, and microsperes would be expected in a thermate reaction.
"Thermate-like residue?" You've
asserted the residue is "thermate-like" on the basis of there being sulfur. In every other way, the residue is
not "thermate-like." Like I said before, the
heat of thermate would have totally destroyed the eutectic. That's the definition of the eutectic. It would be the first thing to melt. It survived.
And as for the "microsp[h]eres," same deal. You pulled that one out of a hat. Show me an experiment that says microspheres are characteristic of thermi/a/öte, and not from magnetic ink on financial documents, friction of impact, or ordinary fires. You can't.
Therefore, what you have is not evidence. It doesn't support your hypothesis, and it doesn't weaken everyone else's. Not Evidence. End of story.
You even admit this, with a qualifier:
This evidence, at the moment, remains inconclusive because natural causes have not been ruled out yet (truth movements job to do it). And no natural causes have been shown to show these effects in the lab (and reported in a journal or official report).
(Emphasis added)
Ah, but is that true? Why, no, that's not true either. Eutectics in steel are familiar, just unusual in office building fires. Hence why Dr. Biederman came up with a host of possible explanations,
none of which involved thermi/a/öte.
You made that up too.
Your third fallacy is a classic:
On a different note;
You are a NASA Engineer and I am nothing of the sort. I expect you to know more about these things than I, especially considering your high debunking status.
This is called an
Argumentum ad hominem, cloaked in
Appeal to Authority. As it happens, I am a NASA scientist. And I know more about these things than you. However, the two have nothing to do with each other. Nor have I ever claimed that, solely on the basis of my credentials, what I say is true. What I say is true because it can be verified, not because of my role as a scientist. Scientists make mistakes too.
However you have misled me more than once on this thread about thermate.
1. You said barium nitrate was not reported and therefore disproves Thermate--->this is untrue becuase barium nitrate is not always used
Actually, this is false. Thermate is a specific compound. You can make a custom blend of thermite that includes sulfur and no barium nitrate, of course, or one that uses zinc or mercury or whatever you want. That's not thermate. It also doesn't matter -- none of the other symptoms of thermite, no matter what the composition, are there. I already explained this to you, oh, at least twice.
Your response to this was to quote Wikipedia at me. That's an
Appeal to false authority. Wikipedia is a reasonable place to start, and I use it myself, but you need to verify it. Especially its entry on thermate. Here's a hint: When the
revision history of a given page has over 50 edits, including repeated acts of vandalism by morons in the Truth Movement, you need to find a better source of information.
2. You also said the by products of a thermate reaction could not cause sulfidation.--->this is not true considering a by-product is SO2.
That's actually a
lie. Nowhere did I say that the chemical form of thermate-combusted sulfur would prevent sulfidation. I just checked to be absolutely sure. What I said is that the sulfur would not have escaped, leaving sulfidation without the other signs of a thermite reaction, and that you cannot have sulfur from thermite without the heat of thermite. Those two ingredients will
never form a eutectic that melts at 950
oC. That's what I said. If you bother extracting the sulfur from a hypothetical barium-less sulfur-laden thermite reaction, it will act just like any other sulfur will... but clearly that didn't happen.
Since you are a NASA engineer and have high debunking status, these simple mistakes cannot be forgiven and give me no choice but to be skeptical of your "no evidence" claim.
Again,
Argumentum ad hominem. And I already know you're looking for excuses to disregard what I say.
I really don't care. The one needing education is you -- I have nothing to lose but my temper.
So far, you are proving to be quite a disappointment. Please try harder.
