Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

reply to post by -PLB-

What happened to the idea that a single experiment can falsify a hypothesis?

Nothing, it can. But an experiment can also be false itself for any number of reasons.

One reason may be that it is poorly conducted, that the conditions were not as originally stipulated (which is probably the case here as far as I can tell in that a damage chip may have been used), that the equipment did not have the required sensitivity, the experiment itself may be poorly designed, there may be contaminants...

There is a whole litany of reasons why simply showing a failure to reproduce by experiment does not indicate that something is not reproducible by experiment.

One must first eliminate combustion

He did.

There were no spheres on the chip before the reaction.
There were spheres on the chip after the reaction.
Combustion cannot cause the spheres to form.
Thermite can cause the spheres to form.
There is no other plausible mechanism for the spheres to form.

Therefore a there was a thermite reaction.

reply to post by -PLB-

Jones also does not have a PhD in chemistry.

PhD's are very narrow degrees.

Here are some physics PhD topics from Harvard since 2000, www.physics.harvard.edu...
So basically what you are saying is that none of these guys are qualified to do experiments with this stuff? (maybe you can find one, I must confess to not having gone through each one)

Are you saying that only people who did there degree in analysis of nano-thermite residue after controlled demolition should be able to do experiments?

Why does your MASTER's is a completely unrelated field make you more qualified all of a sudden.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by -PLB-

 

One must first eliminate combustion

He did.

There were no spheres on the chip before the reaction.
There were spheres on the chip after the reaction.
Combustion cannot cause the spheres to form.
Thermite can cause the spheres to form.
There is no other plausible mechanism for the spheres to form.

Therefore a there was a thermite reaction

1. He did not eliminate combustion because he ran the DSC in a stream of air. Because of the energy output, we know combustion occurred in at least two samples. The DSC exotherm curves were similar for all samples and varied in amplitude.
2. He did not see any spheres in the SEM but that does not mean that spheres were not present as there is no proof that his survey was comprehensive or the spheres were not in the organic binder.
3. You do not know what combustion can do or not do.
4. Thermite reactions are not the only process by which the spheres form and we do not know if any were present to begin with. Note also that there should have been many spheres of iron had a thermite reaction occurred. There were not.

Therefore we do not know if a thermite reaction occurred.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
Are you saying that only people who did there degree in analysis of nano-thermite residue after controlled demolition should be able to do experiments?

When I am sick I go to a medical doctor, not a PhD in physics knowing a lot about quantum mechanics. Sure he may be clever and give me a diagnosis, but in the end the opinion of a doctor would be worth a lot more. Same counts for a lot of other areas. I have read that none of Jones team members had much experience with this type of research. Yet they are put forward by thuthers as experts who's expertise may only be questioned by publishing a peer reviewed paper in a respected journal.

Why does your MASTER's is a completely unrelated field make you more qualified all of a sudden

Did I say that anywhere? I am not qualified at all in chemistry and material science. Just like Jones isn't.

reply to post by pteridine

1. He did not eliminate combustion because he ran the DSC in a stream of air.

A DSC trace cannot exclude or confirm a thremite reaction as a source for the trace. It can describe a certain character trait and maybe tell you if thermite was the SOLE source, but that is it.

So rattling on about how the DSC doesn't positively confirm thermite is utterly irrelevant, because even if he did exactly what you ask it would STILL not confirm or exclude thermite.

2. He did not see any spheres in the SEM but that does not mean that spheres were not present as there is no proof that his survey was comprehensive or the spheres were not in the organic binder.

And aliens could have abducted JFK. Lots of things COULD HAVE happened.

Let us restrict the discussion to the facts that we actually have and leave character assassination for when after argument makes sense.

3. You do not know what combustion can do or not do.

You cannot melt iron through combustion in open air conditions. I have seen know reason except for your wishful thinking that it can.

If you have evidence that it can, please by all means now would be the time to present it.

4. Thermite reactions are not the only process by which the spheres form and we do not know if any were present to begin with. Note also that there should have been many spheres of iron had a thermite reaction occurred. There were not.

There have been lots of candidate sources, but they have all been "debunked" by your inability to show evidence for your delusions.

The chip in question did not have such a sphere before ignition and did have after, so the only candidate source is A) combustion or B) thermitic reaction.

Since you cannot substantiate your claim that combustion produce this particular sphere at this particular time and there is NO independent reason to even suspect that such a sphere could have been formed through combustion, it has, as a matter of fact, been shown to be thermite to anyone who is not willfully blind.

reply to post by -PLB-

I have read that none of Jones team members had much experience with this type of research.

I read somewhere that Hobbits like to smoke pipe and Wizards fly on broomsticks at school games.

Please do try to separate your fantasies from reality.

Are you suggesting that only people with PhD's in nano-thermitics should conduct this research. How many of those in the world are there, any idea PLB?

reply to post by Darkwing01


I am suggesting that only people who have the proper education and experience should do it.

What is your evidence that Jones team members had the expertise required for the experiments they did? Or do you just believe that did because it is convenient for you? Sure I can not with certainty say they did not have it, but can you with certainty say they did? Can you reference to work where they did similar analysis?

By the way, I base what I say on this:

To be fair, Harrit is not an expert in electron microprobe analysis (EMPA/EDX/SEM) and this was the first time that he was co-author on a paper that used this measurement method

activistteacher.blogspot.com...

I agree that is is not a very good source so I am completely open to be proven wrong.

reply to post by -PLB-


The key-word in that quote is "co-author".

If everybody was restricted to doing research only in their PhD field and barred from using new techniques there would be no science whatsoever. It would all be utterly irrelevant to almost everything.

reply to post by Darkwing01


It seems to me that Harrit was the lead author. But if Harrit was not the expert, who was? Which co-author did the experiments and also (co)authored publications in which the same techniques were used? I am not saying that nobody had the required expertise, I haven't done that much research to be honest. But since I keep hearing that Jones teams were experts, I am sure you can substantiate that.

I just realized by the way that Kevin Ryan is also a co-author. That explains why he doesn't get those samples tested.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

1. He did not eliminate combustion because he ran the DSC in a stream of air.

A DSC trace cannot exclude or confirm a thremite reaction as a source for the trace. It can describe a certain character trait and maybe tell you if thermite was the SOLE source, but that is it.

So rattling on about how the DSC doesn't positively confirm thermite is utterly irrelevant, because even if he did exactly what you ask it would STILL not confirm or exclude thermite.

2. He did not see any spheres in the SEM but that does not mean that spheres were not present as there is no proof that his survey was comprehensive or the spheres were not in the organic binder.

And aliens could have abducted JFK. Lots of things COULD HAVE happened.

Let us restrict the discussion to the facts that we actually have and leave character assassination for when after argument makes sense.

3. You do not know what combustion can do or not do.

You cannot melt iron through combustion in open air conditions. I have seen know reason except for your wishful thinking that it can.

If you have evidence that it can, please by all means now would be the time to present it.

4. Thermite reactions are not the only process by which the spheres form and we do not know if any were present to begin with. Note also that there should have been many spheres of iron had a thermite reaction occurred. There were not.

There have been lots of candidate sources, but they have all been "debunked" by your inability to show evidence for your delusions.

The chip in question did not have such a sphere before ignition and did have after, so the only candidate source is A) combustion or B) thermitic reaction.

Since you cannot substantiate your claim that combustion produce this particular sphere at this particular time and there is NO independent reason to even suspect that such a sphere could have been formed through combustion, it has, as a matter of fact, been shown to be thermite to anyone who is not willfully blind.

1. Not surprisingly, you are incorrect. If the DSC is operated under an inert atmosphere and there is no exotherm, then there is no thermite reaction. The thermite reaction is a self-contained REDOX system.
2. And the red chips could be primer paint. The presence of iron containing microspheres in environmental dust samples is common, q.v., flyash and welding scale. Jones used a magnet to separate his red chips and that is why the gray layer was present. Red iron oxide is not magnetic, but iron containing microspheres and magnetite are, so Jones would selectively recover the magnetic portions of the dust, including the microspheres. Call it sample contamination if you like. As PLB has noted, the expertise of the authors and their disinterested nature are both in question.
3. Note that milligram samples in a DSC being swept by a 55mL/min forced air stream is not "open air" in spite of what you may read on the some-guys-for-truth sites. Note also that the "iron rich" sphere was a single item and was not iron, per se. The presence of aluminosilicates, as shown in the elemental maps, provides ample material for spheres to form that can contain iron. Complex iron silicates can melt at temperatures hundreds of degrees lower than the melting point of iron or iron oxide. You have no idea what the sample temperature was during burn out. This coupled with questionable sample prep, negates the conclusion that the sphere must have been from a thermite reaction. [Where are all the others? Why is the starting material not completely reacted?]
4. It cannot be concluded that thermite was the source of the single sphere. You seem to suspend use of your vaunted "logic" whenever reality gets in the way of your desires for conspiracy.

reply to post by pteridine

Not surprisingly, you are incorrect. If the DSC is operated under an inert atmosphere and there is no exotherm, then there is no thermite reaction.

Okay...

Technically that doesn't necessarily confirm the fact that thermite is causing the exotherm, since it could also be produced by random quantum effects, just folowing your method here....

But yes, you are right we can exclude the hypothesis that is is NOT thermite by that experiment for all intents and purposes.

But why do we need to, we have already excluded the hypothesis by other means.

What YOU are claiming is that we can exclude the hypothesis that it IS thermite by NOT doing the experiment. But that is illogical, the hypothesis that it is NOT thermite is already excluded, and you have failed to demonstrate that having combustion taking part in the reaction EXCLUDES thermitic reactions also taking place.

Either you are being ridiculously pig-headed or your grasp of logic is stunningly atrocious.

You need to demonstrate that there is ANY validity to your claims of the source of the iron sphere and ANY validity to your claim that the presence of combustion excludes thermitic reaction.

In my opinion there is no need for additional experiments until OS'ers can demonstrate a grasp of elementary logic.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
But why do we need to, we have already excluded the hypothesis by other means.

Because nobody outside the truthmovement find Jones results compelling? Because you as truther wants to get the truth out to convince as many others? Or are you afraid that the truth will not be what you want it to be?

In my opinion there is no need for additional experiments until OS'ers can demonstrate a grasp of elementary logic.

So you do not really care about getting as much people as possible convinced that there was a conspiracy, you care about keeping your faith intact.

Originally posted by -PLB-
Because nobody outside the truthmovement find Jones results compelling?

Regardless of what you think of his paper, which you've clearly demonstrated you do not have the education to criticize, people finding his paper 'compelling' makes no difference to its validity.

New paper published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal by Dr. Steven Jones and 8 others discusses the "red chips" found in World Trade Center dust following the destruction on 9/11. Their conclusion: Thermite. Debunkers: submit your work for peer-review and publication.

www.nowpublic.com...

Where is your published paper PLB?

Originally posted by ANOK
Regardless of what you think of his paper, which you've clearly demonstrated you do not have the education to criticize, people finding his paper 'compelling' makes no difference to its validity.

But it does make a difference in convincing others that there was a conspiracy. But truthers don't care about that, apparently.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Not surprisingly, you are incorrect. If the DSC is operated under an inert atmosphere and there is no exotherm, then there is no thermite reaction.

Okay...

Technically that doesn't necessarily confirm the fact that thermite is causing the exotherm, since it could also be produced by random quantum effects, just folowing your method here....

But yes, you are right we can exclude the hypothesis that is is NOT thermite by that experiment for all intents and purposes.

But why do we need to, we have already excluded the hypothesis by other means.

What YOU are claiming is that we can exclude the hypothesis that it IS thermite by NOT doing the experiment. But that is illogical, the hypothesis that it is NOT thermite is already excluded, and you have failed to demonstrate that having combustion taking part in the reaction EXCLUDES thermitic reactions also taking place.

Either you are being ridiculously pig-headed or your grasp of logic is stunningly atrocious.

You need to demonstrate that there is ANY validity to your claims of the source of the iron sphere and ANY validity to your claim that the presence of combustion excludes thermitic reaction.

In my opinion there is no need for additional experiments until OS'ers can demonstrate a grasp of elementary logic.

You have twisted yourself around to the point where you completely miss the point, again. There has been no exclusion of the hypothesis that it is not thermite. That one is still alive. The experiment should be done so that a distinction between the combustion that we know is occurring and any thermite reaction hiding in that exotherm can be made. I made no claim that the combustion excludes a thermite reaction. I said that thermite cannot be claimed because we are certain that combustion was occurring but had no idea if a thermite reaction was also occurring. Your own grasp of elementary logic seems to be on a par with your stunningly atrocious grasp of elementary chemistry.
.

Now that is an interesting way of looking at things.

So if we modify it somewhat we could say that there has been no exclusion of the hypothesis that explosives were in the twin towers. We know there were numerous (what NIST calls) "pressure pulses" and we know "flows of molten metal, were temporally correlated with pressure pulses" and that the pulses "affected multiple floors and faces, and changes in the positions of hanging objects."

So experiments should be done so that a distinction can be made between the pressure pulses that we know occurred and any explosive (or thermetic) reaction that may be hiding in that pulse.

So a plane damage, fire and gravity only collapse cannot be claimed because we are certain that large pressure pulses occurred but have no idea if an explosive (or thermetic) event was also occurring.

It's perfect.

reply to post by pteridine

There has been no exclusion of the hypothesis that it is not thermite. That one is still alive.

On what basis?

You have no reason to believe it to not be thermite, based on the components alone it is most likely to be thermite and every experiment that you have proposed to prove the hypothesis that it is not thermite has gone down in flames of ignominy.

But okay, you can continue believing it.

The experiment should be done so that a distinction between the combustion that we know is occurring and any thermite reaction hiding in that exotherm can be made.

Yes, but only so we describe the thermite better.

We already know it was thermite for other reasons, so on what basis do you claim that this experiment HAS to be conducted to prove thermite?

I made no claim that the combustion excludes a thermite reaction. I said that thermite cannot be claimed because we are certain that combustion was occurring but had no idea if a thermite reaction was also occurring.

But we do. There is no other explanation for the formation of iron spheres, they could only have been formed in a thermitic reaction.

Your own grasp of elementary logic seems to be on a par with your stunningly atrocious grasp of elementary chemistry.

We are not arguing about chemistry here.

We are arguing about you refusing to acknowledge that your arguments are based on wishful thinking.

Did I catch you STILL claiming that it was paint a couple posts back? And YOU dare ask for positive proof?

That's some nerve you got there.

reply to post by NIcon

So a plane damage, fire and gravity only collapse cannot be claimed because we are certain that large pressure pulses occurred but have no idea if an explosive (or thermetic) event was also occurring.

It's perfect.

Haha, it's so convoluted that only an OS'er could come up with it.

I love it, I had to re-read it four times before I could see your drift, but it works perfectly

reply to post by Darkwing01


We do not know it was thermite for any reason. One "iron-rich-sphere" is hardly diagnostic of thermite. Your desire for conspiracy is showing and you have abandoned reason for emotion.

You espouse Jones erroneous conclusions. Use your logic to explain how the thermite paint was used and what it did.

reply to post by pteridine

One "iron-rich-sphere" is hardly diagnostic of thermite.

How else do you think it got onto that chip?

More important, provide proof of your theory.