Creative Speculation
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
William Seger
(10,778 posts)Trash incinerators also produce microspheres by melting and partially reducing very small pieces of rust. Coal-fired boilers produce fly ash that also contains iron microspheres, produced by melting and reducing small iron oxide impurities embedded in the coal. Neither of those reach the temperatures necessary to melt large chunks of iron, but according to Basile's "logic" there must be a thermitic reaction going on, because crackerjack chemist Basile doesn't know any other way to make iron microspheres. Never mind that there isn't any elemental aluminum to participate in a thermitic reaction -- just like Harrit's chips! -- it's gotta be thermitic, because, science.
Actually, there are any number of ways to make iron microspheres, including my new favorite: When you strike a piece of steel with, say, a piece of flint, guess what those sparks are? (Hint: If you guessed molten flint, you'd be wrong.) Now, if you grind steel and concrete together, what would happen? According to Basile's "logic" there must be a thermitic reaction.
And you still can't figure out why these clowns are not taken seriously by real scientists?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
superbeachnut
(381 posts)You showed steel that was corroded in fire at temperatures less than 1000C. Oops, you don't know the melting point of steel.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)JREF and those other tools there fail miserably.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)more nonsense from the anti truth squad?
Check this out
http://www.ae911truth.org/
And
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/
almost 2200 architects and engineers obviously do take it seriously and that number grows every time a scientist or engineer actually takes time to look at the evidence.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... have produced exactly 0 valid technical arguments, and time after time, we find that the arguments they advance depend on just ignoring any evidence and reasoning that they can't force-fit into their theories. "Appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy even if you're talking about actual experts, but you're talking about chemists who don't know how iron microspheres are produced and architects who don't know anything about structural mechanics and high-school physics teachers who don't understand physics and "scientists" who are baffled by paint chips. What Gage's 2200 number really tells us is that only a tiny fraction of one percent of the "architects and engineers" who have heard or read his bullshit have fallen for it, which means that as a group, they are apparently far less gullible than the general population. But the number really doesn't matter; what counts is WHY they believe what they believe, and you simply refuse to confront how flawed their arguments are.
And c'mon, wildbill, 15 minutes before this post, you dismissed relevant evidence by just labeling it as "sophistry," just as you typically do, and now you want to talk about people who "actually take time to look at the evidence?" What a hoot.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm glad you have finally reached the proper formulation of facts and logic which, I am certain, is finally going to change WildBill's mind!
I'm just sad to see that he's regressed back to YouTube videos with no description.
Are they still the ones with the spooky music?
William Seger
(10,778 posts)Damn shame, really; that's usually the best part.
Yeah, I don't think a description is too much to ask, and bonus points for offering a reason why the poster thinks it's worth watching.
And yes, thank you, I was sure I could change wildbill's mind if I persevered. My work here is done; I can submit my bill and expense report to headquarters and move on to the next contract.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Again Seger I think we'll go with a reputable chemist rather than some anonymous internet poster!
William Seger
(10,778 posts)A reputable chemist would have conducted experiments to disprove the thermite hypothesis, as proper scientific methodology requires. Harrit et al. did not test their samples for elemental aluminum; they did not test to see if the samples would burn in an inert atmosphere (without oxygen); they did not test for the production of aluminum oxide; they studiously avoided any test that would disprove thermite. If any of those those tests disproved thermite, then no further testing would have been necessary.
Instead, Harrit et al. (and now Basil) only attempted to find tests that they could use to claim that the chips were some kind of thermite. In the end, their own data showed that the chips neither looked like nor behaved like any known form of thermite, so they "concluded" that it must be some unknown form of thermite, based only on extremely dubious inferences rather than proper tests.
As they admit in the paper, the chips look like paint chips, but what would a comparative analysis show? Who knows, from that paper anyway, since they didn't even bother to find out what kind of rust-proofing paint was used on the WTC towers. Instead, they did superficial and totally irrelevant testing on some paint Steven Jones scraped off the BYU stadium bleachers. Are the iron microspheres in the dust really a "signature" of thermite? Who knows, since they don't even acknowledge the myriad ways that such spheres can be produced, much less do any comparative analysis with any of them.
It isn't just the unfounded conclusions that would prevent their paper from ever being published in a real peer-reviewed scientific journal; it's the lack of proper hypothesis testing required by the scientific method, which isn't well hidden by wrapping the report in technical-sounding jargon.
On the other hand, here is what a reputable (and experienced) chemist found:
spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust
samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray
side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si,
and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared
absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical
and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of
crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates
that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental
aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the
analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing,
thin sectioning or following MEK treatment. (Emphasis added.)
No elemental aluminum means no thermitic reaction is possible. Period. Find a reputable chemist who says otherwise, and we'll see how well his reputation holds up. The finding that the chips are a match for the rust-proofing paint actually used on the WTC floor joists wouldn't stop "truthers" from claiming, "So what, it still could be thermitic." But the lack of elemental aluminum settles that question conclusively. Some parts of "trutherville" have caught on to that and have abandoned the "thermite chips" nonsense; others probably never will, but who cares.
> Again Seger I think we'll go with a reputable chemist rather than some anonymous internet poster!
No, you won't. You'll ignore this study just as you ignore established experts in all other fields if they don't tell you what you want to hear. Instead, you'll support hucksters and frauds who clearly don't know what they're talking about, and then call anyone who challenges them an "anti-truther."
If what we've seen on this board in recent years is any indication of the current state of the "Truth Movement," wildbill -- and I believe it is -- then it's past time to find a new hobby.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Basile tested the chips and found them to have thermitic properties.
The results Millette uses are based on 400 degrees.
"It is perfectly clear that the sample of dust Milette is using is quite different from the WTC dust." - Frank Legge
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... not after he gave some to a fellow "truther" who couldn't duplicate Harrit's results!
So, Milette got his samples from sources with a documented provenance (unlike Harrit's): MVA Scientific Consultants. Milette also selected chips to test using the same method Harrit did -- a magnet -- and he also did spectral analysis to determine if they were similar to Harrit's spectra, which they were.
If Legge is right that Milette's chips were different from Harrit's, that makes Harrit's tests even more suspicious.
