JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 30th January 2008, 08:49 AM   #81
Viper Daimao
Critical Thinker
 
Viper Daimao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
I submit to you that Jones has decided to literally compare apples to oranges. He has chosen to compare the composition of ordinary building dust to ash from a building fire.
You mean figuratively right?
Viper Daimao is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 08:50 AM   #82
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,079
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
The process is described in section 4.5. Either way, the word approximate is the key here. They wouldn't have included that word if they had an exact number.

Regardless, the point is: NIST ignored all of this, despite numerous cues from USGS and FEMA. A new investigation is the only logical choice.
Why do we need to investigate this as more than just a naturally occurring oddity?
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:00 AM   #83
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,664
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
The paper makes no such contention. The paper is not only about microspheres - it includes other observations from various sources that also suggest exceedingly high temperatures.
Horsefeathers. The authors know what their own paper is contending, do they not? Here's what their abstract says:

Quote:
The formation of molten spheres with high iron contents along with other species in the
WTC dust required extremely high temperatures. Our results are compared with those of other laboratories.
The temperatures required for the molten sphere-formation and evaporation of materials as observed in the
WTC dust are significantly higher than temperatures associated with the burning of jet fuel and office
materials in the WTC buildings.
By "other observations" you are referring to the evaporation aka "swiss cheese" evidence? Here's what the paper says:

Quote:
It is not clear to us that boiling of aluminosilicate is needed to produce the observed porous structure;
melting and evaporation of some minor component may suffice. But if the “Swiss-cheese appearance” is
indeed a result of “boiling and evaporation” of the material as the report suggests [1], we note the boiling
temperature for aluminosilicate is approximately 2,760 °C [11].
So the authors have no idea (and present no evidence) for what, if anything, was boiled and evaporated from the particle, but they "note" that if it was aluminosilicate, it would have had to boil at a high temperature. Well, great. And if it was rum, there might have been pirates present.


Quote:
Either way, the conclusion is more or less that NIST completely ignored this evidence, as opposed to acknowledging it and explaining why it happened. The authors suggest a new investigation to find out "why". That's hard to argue with, even from your point of view.

No one's stopping them from continuing to investigate, least of all me.

Of course, if they want to expand their investigation to include experts in the subject matter at hand and real peer review, then they're going to have to start listening to what those experts and peer reviews say.

Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Please re-read section 4.5 of the paper for a description of how microspheres are most commonly created. The listed temperatures
correspond to that description.

But that description of bulk melted metal "sprayed into the air" is an unsupported guess. I have no reason to believe their assertion that that is how microspheres are "most commonly created" in fires. The presence of microspheres in fly ash, for instance, strongly suggest that they are formed in fires without spraying any melted metal into the air, and might also be already present at the wtc before the fires (as fly ash is a component of many concretes). Section 5 adds the "example" of "explosive chemical reactions" as a possible source of spherule formation. So, why have Jones et. al. not presented a comparative analysis of spherules formed from metal sprays and explosives? What's so hard about setting off some thermoit or whatever, and collecting samples from demolition sites, and showing us how similar the resulting particles are to the ones in their New York samples?

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:01 AM   #84
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
truther deep44 and truther sizzler:

Please prove, in anyway that the iron rich spherules could not have been produced by the forces/chemical reactions/circumstances provided by the impact of the planes, fuel and office fires, collapse of the building.

In other words, all Jones has here are spherules that were LIKELY produced at high temperatures (although Greening and CC have presented arguments here on this forum that with certain materials present, such high temps were not needed).

Since I know you CAN'T provide proof that these spherules are caused by anything sinister, I'll give you a break and just leave the paper as it stands..."Much ado about nothing".

Like I said, unless Jones provides HIS SAMPLES to an independent lab to be analyzed, we have nothing to discuss, as I do not trust him or his truther fellow "scientists" as far as I could throw them.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:04 AM   #85
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
oh and for those MORON truthers who are stating noone can debunk the paper...give it time, I am sure someone will produce a paper on it...just as it took Jones and the boys a while to create their paper, it may take some time to produce a paper discussing it.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:07 AM   #86
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
The source is the same paper Jones cites. Oh, he didn't mention that part? I'm shocked.

That list already considers the "very high temperatures" that were necessary to produce the dust they analyzed. They made no such prediction prior to their analysis on the dust sample.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:13 AM   #87
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Viper Daimao View Post
You mean figuratively right?
On planet X, literally and figuratively mean the same thing.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:18 AM   #88
DavidJames
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 8,250
I admit to not having the knowledge to understand the technical aspects of this discussion but how far off would I be saying this appears to be Jones simply throwing more **** against the wall hoping something will stick?
DavidJames is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:19 AM   #89
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
That list already considers the "very high temperatures" that were necessary to produce the dust they analyzed. They made no such prediction prior to their analysis on the dust sample.
Valid conclusion: conspiracists need to learn more about the complex subject of combustion in large office building fires.

Invalid conclusions: There's evidence of wrongdoing; this is suspicious stuff; 9/11 was an inside job.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:27 AM   #90
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Please prove, in anyway that the iron rich spherules could not have been produced by the forces/chemical reactions/circumstances provided by the impact of the planes, fuel and office fires, collapse of the building.

In other words, all Jones has here are spherules that were LIKELY produced at high temperatures (although Greening and CC have presented arguments here on this forum that with certain materials present, such high temps were not needed).

Since I know you CAN'T provide proof that these spherules are caused by anything sinister, I'll give you a break and just leave the paper as it stands..."Much ado about nothing".

Like I said, unless Jones provides HIS SAMPLES to an independent lab to be analyzed, we have nothing to discuss, as I do not trust him or his truther fellow "scientists" as far as I could throw them.

Well, TAM, it's a simple matter of probability. How much dust was there before the collapse, and how much dust was there after the collapse? Think about that, and then ask yourself where the dust most likely originated.

Can I prove that it originated from the collapse, as opposed to the fires or the plane impact? No, certainly not; however, there were at least three separate dust samples collected and analyzed, and they're all consistent to some degree (specifically, the presence of iron-rich microspheres).

So what are the odds that all of the sampled dust existed prior to the collapse?

As for the cause being something sinister - that's not for me to decide or "prove". This is just another item that NIST "forgot" to mention in their report - it's tacked onto the end of a list full of all the toughest questions (post-collapse behavior, WTC7, etc). It's just another layer of icing on the "we need a new investigation" cake.

If you're so confident that NIST got it right the first time, why do you object to a new investigation? Why are you so afraid (to the point of hostility) of the answers to these unanswered questions?
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:28 AM   #91
Furcifer
miscreant
 
Furcifer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: hohm
Posts: 13,379
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
I admit to not having the knowledge to understand the technical aspects of this discussion but how far off would I be saying this appears to be Jones simply throwing more **** against the wall hoping something will stick?
Kinda. But then he put the **** under a microscope, found large quantities of corn and implies that only someone from Iowa could have that much corn content.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:32 AM   #92
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Valid conclusion: conspiracists need to learn more about the complex subject of combustion in large office building fires.

Where can I read about other office fires where a similar percentage of iron-rich microspheres were found in the dust? Is it a book? A webpage? Just provide your source, please.

note: I'm not looking for any more post-hoc rationalizations. Thanks.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:36 AM   #93
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
I admit to not having the knowledge to understand the technical aspects of this discussion but how far off would I be saying this appears to be Jones simply throwing more **** against the wall hoping something will stick?

This paper was peer-reviewed by scientists who are unaffiliated with the 9/11 truth movement. They made suggestions and the paper was modified.

So you could say that, but it would be with total disregard to reality.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 09:54 AM   #94
DavidJames
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 8,250
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
This paper was peer-reviewed by scientists who are unaffiliated with the 9/11 truth movement. They made suggestions and the paper was modified.

So you could say that, but it would be with total disregard to reality.
What I meant by "throwing **** against the wall" was that he keeps putting out his **** without including a coherent discussion of what happened and how. He found ****, great, what does it mean and how did it get there.

Can you point out where is describes, in detail, what happened and how.

Thanks.
DavidJames is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 10:14 AM   #95
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Where can I read about other office fires where a similar percentage of iron-rich microspheres were found in the dust? Is it a book? A webpage? Just provide your source, please.

note: I'm not looking for any more post-hoc rationalizations. Thanks.
Post hoc? You don't seem to know what that means. Please refer to the paper I linked above.

For further research, I suggest you contact the authors of the papers Jones cites, and work your way to communicating with relevant experts from there. That's what Jones should have done.

Is basic research really so difficult that you need the process explained to you? It's your issue. Will you get to work?

Yes or no?
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 30th January 2008 at 10:15 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 10:51 AM   #96
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,426
This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!

Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.

Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just "playing it safe" in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface......

But consider this: Jones' last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that "covering the bases."

But, as I said before, Jones' thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!

Last edited by Apollo20; 30th January 2008 at 10:55 AM.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:03 AM   #97
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The armpit of L.A.
Posts: 7,857
Very well spoken.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES

Last edited by R.Mackey; 30th January 2008 at 11:03 AM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:04 AM   #98
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Spacetime
Posts: 1,594
As far as the eye can see

Ambiguity
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 30th January 2008 at 11:09 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:07 AM   #99
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,146
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!

Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.

Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just "playing it safe" in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface......

But consider this: Jones' last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that "covering the bases."

But, as I said before, Jones' thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!

That definitely puts things in perspective. Thank you sir.

And if I may add: There were welding events after the collapse as well, in order to remove debris. Unless I'm missing something, post 9/11 events could also contribute to the formation of the spherules, correct?

Or were the samples confirmed to have been taken prior to major rescue operations?
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:14 AM   #100
sleahead
Critical Thinker
 
sleahead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post

Or were the samples confirmed to have been taken prior to major rescue operations?
He makes that claim about one of the samples. See the appendix at the end of his paper.
sleahead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:16 AM   #101
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The armpit of L.A.
Posts: 7,857
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
And if I may add: There were welding events after the collapse as well, in order to remove debris. Unless I'm missing something, post 9/11 events could also contribute to the formation of the spherules, correct?

Or were the samples confirmed to have been taken prior to major rescue operations?
The argument about salvage welding goes that, without starting at great height, a huge thermal plume, or the energetics of collapse, any iron microspheres created later are unlikely to have traveled from Ground Zero to their alleged recovery point. This is a tricky argument, but it does bias us away from post-collapse explanations.

However, as Dr. Greening correctly points out, there are numerous potential sources pre-collapse that have nothing to do with thermite. Dr. Jones is exerting both Assuming the Consequent and Special Pleading in his reasoning, as usual.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:20 AM   #102
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,146
Ah. That helps. Thank you, gentlemen.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:23 AM   #103
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Spacetime
Posts: 1,594
Ambiguity around microspheres does not mean thermite was not used (so cool your jets)

Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

That, good people, is but one of many reasons why thermite - hidden by jet-induced fires - was chosen as the ideal substance to demolish the towers.

Max
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 30th January 2008 at 11:27 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:33 AM   #104
SDC
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New York area
Posts: 2,250
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

That, good people, is but one of many reasons why thermite - hidden by jet-induced fires - was chosen as the ideal substance to demolish the towers.

Max
I don't think your comments even represent some sort of special fallacy. This is simple wishful pleading, with the notion "You can't prove it wasn't X." No, but you can't prove it is, either (and your explanation is a lot more far-fetched than others).

There is an old statement: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." True. But some people, as you did here, want to argue that "absence of evidence is evidence of presence." Which is simply absurd.

Come on, Max. You can do better, I think.
SDC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:34 AM   #105
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,146
Be careful about charging headlong into a forest/trees dichotemy, Max. Regardless of the microscopic evidence, the macroscopic effects of thermite are quite viewable.
__________________
"... my favorite meal is grilled filet of spherical cow of uniform density ... with a side of mashed potatoes of indeterminate volume, peas arranged in an optimal packing configuration, and a glass of ideal fluid." (PhysicsForums)
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:35 AM   #106
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,786
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!

Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.

Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just "playing it safe" in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface......

But consider this: Jones' last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that "covering the bases."

But, as I said before, Jones' thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!
nice summary
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:37 AM   #107
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Spacetime
Posts: 1,594
nice summary of the summary
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 30th January 2008 at 11:38 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:44 AM   #108
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Spacetime
Posts: 1,594
...or for all of you mathematologists...

nice summary2
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:47 AM   #109
deep
Graduate Poster
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,367
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
Post hoc? You don't seem to know what that means. Please refer to the paper I linked above.

For further research, I suggest you contact the authors of the papers Jones cites, and work your way to communicating with relevant experts from there. That's what Jones should have done.

Is basic research really so difficult that you need the process explained to you? It's your issue. Will you get to work?

Yes or no?

You made a baseless claim. I asked for a source. You haven't provided one. ..and you're telling me to go do research?

That's not how it works, sorry.
deep is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:47 AM   #110
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
R.Mackey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The armpit of L.A.
Posts: 7,857
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.
This thermite of yours sounds rather like the dragon in my garage.

He leaves traces of sulfur. Sometimes. It's ambiguous.

He can melt steel, too. I've never seen it, of course, but he can. But it doesn't matter, because he doesn't have to melt it. He can only weaken it if he wants.

He starts fires, too, with his thermite-breath. See that fire? What, that's only a candle? Well, that could have been started with a thermite fuse. Maybe he lit the candle to confuse you about whether or not he's real.

All of this means that it's incredibly difficult -- if not impossible -- to differentiate my dragon from mental illness, at least for people unfamiliar with Affirming the Consequent.
__________________
"Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai

VT VENIANT OMNES
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 11:52 AM   #111
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: In the argyle
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
You made a baseless claim. I asked for a source. You haven't provided one. ..and you're telling me to go do research?

That's not how it works, sorry.
I gave you the source of that statement, and referred you again to it. I do so again for the third time.

It's your issue. What will you do? My money is on "absolutely nothing." Go ahead and prove me wrong.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 30th January 2008 at 11:54 AM.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 12:53 PM   #112
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by deep44 View Post
Well, TAM, it's a simple matter of probability. How much dust was there before the collapse, and how much dust was there after the collapse? Think about that, and then ask yourself where the dust most likely originated.

Can I prove that it originated from the collapse, as opposed to the fires or the plane impact? No, certainly not; however, there were at least three separate dust samples collected and analyzed, and they're all consistent to some degree (specifically, the presence of iron-rich microspheres).

So what are the odds that all of the sampled dust existed prior to the collapse?

As for the cause being something sinister - that's not for me to decide or "prove". This is just another item that NIST "forgot" to mention in their report - it's tacked onto the end of a list full of all the toughest questions (post-collapse behavior, WTC7, etc). It's just another layer of icing on the "we need a new investigation" cake.

If you're so confident that NIST got it right the first time, why do you object to a new investigation? Why are you so afraid (to the point of hostility) of the answers to these unanswered questions?
Thanks for the civil response.

1. You misunderstood my question. I am asking for proof that Iron Spherules COULD NOT have come from a non-Thermite cause, one that could readily be accounted for by the fires resulting from the plane impacts and chemical processes occuring during the post impact and or/collapse (lets say such as fire plus steel plus other materials within the buildings such as PVC tubing, Wire Insulation, stored batteries, human bodies, etc....). The reason that this is important, is that if there are multiple possible causes for the spherules, then the more common, more expected causes should be considered the most likely, UNLESS compelling evidence to the contrary is presented.

2. NIST is irrelevant to my discussion at this point. If the iron spherules CAN'T be explained through expected reactions from the collapse as the official account describe, then they have some explaining to do. If the can be explained through such processes, then of what relevance are they (NIST) to this discussion?

3. As for a new investigation, as a Canadian I have no argument with it, except that it would be useless, cost a lot of money, and find nothing that would change the outcome or whom/what caused the collapses...so why waste such money and effort. However, it is Americans that have a legitimate beef so to speak, as it is THERE money that will be wasted on it.

---

Why not get Jones, Griffin, and AJ to put money together for such an investigation...I am sure if they can rally such support in the "academia" community, they can muster enough volunteer expertise and cash to get a new investigation going...right?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 12:54 PM   #113
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,786
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
nice summary of the summary
Unlike you, who makes up everything from scratch, Dr Greening took the time to do research on Dr Jones. He summarized many things in one complete package so you would not have to view the video of Dr Jones saying "smoking gun", as he posted slides of stuff I can find in my fire place 2000 miles from the WTC.

Where your remarks lack facts or support, Dr Greening did research to summarize Jones' paper. If you read Dr Jones paper and had done as much research as Dr Greeening, you could summarize as well if your fantasy world did not distort reality.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 01:06 PM   #114
Heiwa
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,149
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Just so you guys don't get carried away - (because a lot of you are very slow) - do not take unfounded delight in the notion that the incredible (impossible?) obstacle of isolating thermite-residue microspheres from the gazillion other possible sources of iron microspheres means that there was no thermite used in the WTCs. All we are seeing is how incredibly ambiguous a substance thermite really is when considered in the complex context of the WTCs.

Do you understand?

None of this means thermite was not used.

All of this means that if thermite were used, it would be incredibly difficult - if not impossible - to definitively differentiate its effects from other phenomena / sources.

Thermite is ambiguous.

That, good people, is but one of many reasons why thermite - hidden by jet-induced fires - was chosen as the ideal substance to demolish the towers.

Max
One thing is sure - release of potential energy of a mass above buckled columns could and do not rupture or cut off all the steel columns and spandrels in WTCs to produce a sudden global collapse. I can cut steel using mechanical means, oxygas or plasma under water with good, controlled dimensional results. When I was in the defence forces 40 years ago we were taught how to cut steel quickly, e.g. to demolish a bridge. Big noise + smoke. Things must have developed since then. The 911 WTC perpetrators must have used latests technology to cut all these columns quickly and coordinated. A pity that FEMA never really studied the rupture surfaces of the rubble columns and just shipped it off. I have a feeling the metal particles found in the dust that could only have been produced at very high temperatures indicate some clever, new technology for cutting steel. No doubt it will sooner or later be available for peaceful means.
Heiwa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 01:10 PM   #115
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Far East...of Canada
Posts: 20,816
I think it was one of the following...

1. Plasma weapons
2. Leprachaun Dust
3. Super Duper Steel-O-Solve(TM)

TAM

Last edited by T.A.M.; 30th January 2008 at 01:10 PM.
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 01:15 PM   #116
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Satellite of Love
Posts: 1,500
Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
One thing is sure - release of potential energy of a mass above buckled columns could and do not rupture or cut off all the steel columns and spandrels in WTCs to produce a sudden global collapse.
Sorry to be the one to tell you, but reality does not conform to your conspiracy fantasies.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I can cut steel using mechanical means, oxygas or plasma under water with good, controlled dimensional results. When I was in the defence forces 40 years ago we were taught how to cut steel quickly, e.g. to demolish a bridge. Big noise + smoke.
This means nothing.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
Things must have developed since then. The 911 WTC perpetrators must have used latests (sic) technology to cut all these columns quickly and coordinated. (sic)
Coordinated by who? Who were the perps? Spell check, please. And when you're done that, PROVIDE SOME EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THIS CLAIM.

Originally Posted by Heiwa View Post
I have a feeling the metal particles found in the dust that could only have been produced at very high temperatures indicate some clever, new technology for cutting steel. No doubt it will sooner or later be available for peaceful means.
Again, your feelings are irrelevant and are not "proof" of anything.
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith
Good Lt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 01:25 PM   #117
Swing Dangler
Graduate Poster
 
Swing Dangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1,049
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
This dancing around about thermite residues in the WTC dust samples is really pathetic!
Sure, Jones et al. do NOT mention thermite in their new paper, but Jones has spent the last two years talking about thermite/thermate at the WTC, so it is interesting that it is NOT mentioned in his latest paper.
Does this mean Jones no longer considers thermite/thermate was used to bring down the towers, or is he just "playing it safe" in his new paper? I suspect the latter, and I also suspect that the thermite, (or thermate!), theory will soon resurface......
But consider this: Jones' last public presentation, in Boston just before Christmas, included spectra of microspheres in the WTC dust and spectra of thermite residues prepared by Jones himself. And in Boston Jones claimed that the WTC microspheres and his thermite residues had essentially the same composition and both contained Si. But Jones was careful to say therMITE in his Boston talk, not his old favorite therMATE. Why? Could it be because at that time he was not seeing S in his spectra.

Now, in his new paper, Jones presents three spectra of WTC dust microspheres: one with no S, one with 0.2 at. % S and one with 3.6 at. % S. I call that "covering the bases."

But, as I said before, Jones' thermite/thermate theory is effectively debunked by the great variety of spectra of iron-rich microspheres in the WTC dust. This PROVES the spheres came from MANY different sources. If some of these sources were present BEFORE 9/11, e.g. in construction debris from welding and cutting operations, Jones needs to show us how he can distinguish between such particles and particles produced in the WTC fires. If he cannot do this, his high temperatures mean NOTHING!
1. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the dust came from
Quote:
It is worth emphasizing that both of the samples were collected indoors and shortly after the 9/11/2001 event. One sample was collected on an indoor window sill on 9/14/2001, just three days after the disaster while searching for survivors in the rubble was ongoing, and in a building four blocks from ground zero.The other sample was acquired inside a fourth-floor apartment (whose upper windows broke during the WTC collapse) a few days later.
If you add the results of the USGC reports to the findings as well and the WTC 7 steel corrosion, I think you have a pretty solid case about the temperature issue.

The other valid criticism would be to test the 'dust' from steel cutting operations to show a similarity or difference in the spheres chemical signature. It appears that they did do this test to rule out contamination from a different source as per your suggestion, Apollo.
Quote:
We likewise observe high-iron, relatively low oxygen spheres (e.g., below right and Fig. 4), which we find are
unlike spheres gathered from cutting structural steel with an oxyacetylene torch.
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times

Last edited by Swing Dangler; 30th January 2008 at 01:27 PM.
Swing Dangler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 01:56 PM   #118
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,786
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
1. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the dust came from

If you add the results of the USGC reports to the findings as well and the WTC 7 steel corrosion, I think you have a pretty solid case about the temperature issue.

The other valid criticism would be to test the 'dust' from steel cutting operations to show a similarity or difference in the spheres chemical signature. It appears that they did do this test to rule out contamination from a different source as per your suggestion, Apollo.
F- … Your post is pointless. The corrosion in the WTC7 was a limited sample (the investigators found it interesting, not a smoking gun for your ignorant 9/11 truth ideas), you do not understand you have failed to make a point, due to shallow research. Pointless. Your need to flesh out your ideas unless you want to be just a spewing 9/11 truth hearsay point man.

Your lack of research is showing.

Last edited by beachnut; 30th January 2008 at 02:10 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 01:57 PM   #119
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,426
Swing Dangler:

May I suggest you look into the microspheres found in WELDING FUME and so-called MICROSPATTER.

A good place to start is the work of N.T. Jenkins who has many excellent articles on this topic in the WELDING JOURNAL.

Then there are these papers to consider:

D. Scott et al, "Spherical debris- Its Occurrence, Formation and Significance in Rolling Contact Fatigue" Wear, 24, 235 (1973)

J. Yuansheng et al. "Spherical Particles Generated During the Running-in Period of a Diesel Engine" Wear, 131 315 (1989)

Swing Dangler, why does Jones not address this kind of research?

Max Photon:

If you look closely I am sure you will find that in the context of microspheres in the WTC dust, most of the ambiguity you refer to is generated by Jones himself!

I wonder why..........
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th January 2008, 02:01 PM   #120
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
1. I think this is a pretty strong indication of where the dust came from

If you add the results of the USGC reports to the findings as well and the WTC 7 steel corrosion, I think you have a pretty solid case about the temperature issue.
I have to disagree. The fact that the dust was collected inside an apartment 4 blocks away tells us three things about the dust sample:
1) The dust was was light enough to be buoyant or neutrally buoyant in air. This provides the first bias as heavier particles would naturally not travel as far.
2) The dust was collected from a contaminated site. The fact that it was collected by someone holding a PhD has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the test site. While I have no doubt that some of the particles included in the analysis were from the WTC, there is no way to tell how many or to differentiate the two.
3) There exists no established chain of custody or valid sampling criteria for the collection of the dust particles. Without these fundamental parameters, Jones cannot make statistical inferences on the nature of the WTC dust as a whole. He can only make inferences based on his sample.
Quote:
The other valid criticism would be to test the 'dust' from steel cutting operations to show a similarity or difference in the spheres chemical signature. It appears that they did do this test to rule out contamination from a different source as per your suggestion, Apollo.
Why, then, have they refused to test natural ashes from fires of similar size and fuel sources? Why have they refused to test fly ashes, rice husk ashes or any other numerous ash sources?
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.