An analysis of the DSC data in the Herrit-Jones paper

Does anybody on here really think he is in a position to debate herrit and jones? What do you have your PHD in, what is your experience in your field?

I am not saying what he wrote is undebunkable, but ill take his word over that of conspiracyguy.

reply to post by Cassius666


I do not have a PhD, but a master in electrical engineering, so I am familiar with the scientific method. I think the question I ask do not require a comprehensive understanding of the subject. The question simply is, how did he determine the spheres were not already there? I don't think he addresses that anywhere in his paper, at least not directly. But it is a crucial step in proving that the spheres were created during the heating, so it should have been addressed directly in my opinion. Especially when other studies report that spheres are already in the dust without heating it. If he had reported something along the lines "we can conclusively say there were no spheres before heating for this, this and that reason" I agree I may be out of depth in order to address it.

Please also note that many experts do not accept the conclusions of the paper. Most ignore it all together, while some do take the effort to address the issues they have with it.

reply to post by turbofan


You have still not addressed the thread topic.

You can claim "red flags" from spheres of unknown origin and dance around all you like but the conclusions Jones comes to are not justified by his evidence. If there was a thermite reaction wouldn't all the spheres be similar and wouldn't there be many more than the one example we saw. The super demolition material wouldnt stay lit and much was not consumed. Ten to 100 tons were claimed to be present in the dust. Doesn't that seem like a lot of unburned demolition material to you?
Jones had to really search to find the sphere he liked. He used magnets to separate the red-gray chips from the dust. If there were iron-rich spheres in the dust where do you think they would go? The sphere origins are certainly in question but they are not this thread topic.

My previous posts explained the pathway that Jones must go down to properly characterize the paint chips. You have failed to make your case for Jones, proved that you know little of the chemistry involved, and now, pretending to be irate over the discussion, you wish to retreat while blaming your opponent for your own shortcomings.

Either address the topic or admit defeat.

Originally posted by pteridineEither address the topic or admit defeat.

You've admitted defeat by asking to discuss heat after all of the explanation in my last reply to you!

Here it is again in simple terms:

EXCESS HEAT MEANS NOTHING

If you want to discuss the paper as a whole (like I started weeks ago), we'll do that ... which is the proper method.

I'll continue discussion with PLB from this point further. Thanks!

reply to post by pteridine


Its not anybody on here who has to admit defeat, its Herrit and jones. You want to debunk their paper, take it up with them or get the opinion of one of his peers with a paragonable education.

"Some guy on a board lacking the necessary education cant keep pace with qualified architects engineers and chemists, therefore the official conspiracy theory must be true."

I see that kind of reasoning a lot here.

Originally posted by Cassius666
"Some guy on a board lacking the necessary education cant keep pace with qualified architects engineers and chemists, therefore the official conspiracy theory must be true."

I see that kind of reasoning a lot here.

Doesn't that work both ways?

"Some guy on a board lacking the necessary education cant keep pace with qualified architects engineers and chemists, therefore the conspiracy theory must be true."

Seems so.

reply to post by -PLB-


No we are truthers, remember? Therefore we are looking to DEBUNK conspiracy theories, holografic planes, nukes the official conspiracy theory which states that due to a gigantic coincidence random fire and damage did what we saw and tries to explain that with half truths and by leaving out inconvenient details to their conspiracy theory..

PLB you are conspiracy guy
PLB it is you who has not a whole lot going for your specific conspiracy theory, be it the official one or something else you read on the internet.

Therefore, we like to hear what people with the approrpiate education and background have to say on the matter, architects engineers, people like Jones and Herrit.

But if you are happy with a report to support the conspiracy theory you believe in, more power to you.

Debunkers (truthers to you) take the most rational explanation and go from there. So far there is little evidence for any of the conspiracy theories, wether it comes from conspiracyguy or elsewhere.

reply to post by Cassius666


My point is that you are being extremely selective in your choice of experts. You discount the experts who are not in agreement with you. You don't even listen to them. I have put quite some effort into reading through and comprehending Jones' work. I have also read the critique concerning his work from other experts, and I agree for a large part with what they have to say. There is a list of pretty easy and cheap experiment Jones could do after which he would make a very strong case. It would silence tons of critique and would give those experts no other choice than to take his work seriously.

He neglects to do those experiment. For me that causes huge alarm bells to ring. He wants to convince the world of his hypothesis, but he refuses to perform the experiments the world is asking him to do, for no apparent reason. Currently he basically only convinces people who were already convinced.

As for my personal conspiracy theory, I am not sure what you are talking about. My basic premise is that the towers collapsed as result of the planes crashing. And I base that on studies by experts and logic. I can't remember I ever commented on the conspiracy itself, who is behind it etc. I am ever willing to consider deliberate neglect.

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by pteridineEither address the topic or admit defeat.

You've admitted defeat by asking to discuss heat after all of the explanation in my last reply to you!

Here it is again in simple terms:

EXCESS HEAT MEANS NOTHING

If you want to discuss the paper as a whole (like I started weeks ago), we'll do that ... which is the proper method.

I'll continue discussion with PLB from this point further. Thanks!

You have shown that you do not choose to enter into actual debate. Whenever any point about the paper arises, you immediately trot out the spheres, confuse "iron " with "iron containing" and use the MP of "iron" to claim some high temperature that somehow proves thermite. The single sphere that Jones found is of uncertain origin and is the result of a magnetic separation of material containing many iron-rich magnetic spheres. The energetics in air obviously include combustion and Jones has no way of knowing if a thermite reaction occurred or not. His conclusions are not valid and he is duping the unaware.

The reason we are discussing one aspect at a time is precisely because you will not stay on topic. At any mention of a discrepancy, you trot out the duty iron-rich sphere, refer to the melting point of iron, and say that it proves thermite. You have no idea what it proves or where it came from. You do not know the conditions at a combustion flame front of carbon burning in a 400 degree furnace in a stream of air. You might be shocked to know that carbon can reduce iron oxide to metallic iron. Excess heat means combustion. To show even the possibility of thermite, combustion must be eliminated. and this requires running under an inert gas, like argon. The combustion is the ONLY reaction we are sure of. Paint burns. Everything else is a maybe.

Now will you address the thread topic and explain how Jones can claim a thermite reaction?

reply to post by -PLB-


Well I am sorry, but if the global community calls the NIST report bunk and the NIST report is only supported by those who composed it, whom should I side with? Not to mention the composers themselves do not have enough faith in their work to call it anything other than a report.

The people who criticized the NIST report have made a good case on why explosives are the more likely scenario. The NIST report uses half truths and leaves out inconvenient details to sell their very own conspiracy theory. Traces of Nanothermite have been found.

I do not believe in the official conspiracy theory because I am quite sane.

But you are free to believe whatever you want. Like I said, if the NIST report makes you happy, who am I to take that away from you?

reply to post by Cassius666


You base the idea that the global community think explosives were used on blind faith. There isn't a single publication that is accepted in the scientific community that supports that idea. There are numerous publications that supports that plane crashes are responsible. If you really would base your opinion on what the experts say, you would discount explosives. What you seem to be suffering from is confirmation bias.

reply to post by -PLB-


Thousands of experts came out against the NIST report. No professionals came out in support of the NIST report. Many professionals who came out against the NIST report had their academic careers ruined, Jones lost his tenure over it. An fact the conspiracy theorists who believe in the official conspiracy theory like to ignore. I am sure far more experts would speak out against the NIST report if it would not mean putting your academic career at risk. As it is either experts have spoken out against the NIST report or did not say anything about it either way. You seem to think that silence means support, if they support it, why dont they defend it and challenge those who attack it?

If the NIST report is defensible why is there a need to go after academics who find fault with it? Usually you dont get fired for being wrong, being wrong is part of research a conclusion is reached and the project moves on.

The only defense I have seen for the NIST report is conspiracy guy on conspiracy board. You could be flipping burgers for a living for all I know. I am not saying I am not taking you seriously, but I am taking the word of qualified people over yours. So far I did not hear a beep, nothing nada niente nichts in the defense of the NIST report from the scientific community.

I has all been conspiracy guys on conspiracy boards defending the official conspiracy theory.

On the other hand there are thousands of architects engineers chemists and eyewhitnesses who said their bit about the NIST report.

I am merely siding with whom has the stronger case.

reply to post by Cassius666


The reason your career is at risk when you support such ideas is because the majority thinks they are crackpot ideas. If the majority agreed with it, your career would also not be at risk,

Anyway, I am not really a supporter of the NIST report, I don't care that much about it. Not sure where you got that idea. I have only read it partially and found it hard to find what I was looking for.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Cassius666

 

The reason your career is at risk when you support such ideas is because the majority thinks they are crackpot ideas.

That is a lie.

reply to post by Cassius666


Please learn what a lie is, its rude calling people lairs.

So what is the reason according to you? Am I sensing correctly you think there is a conspiracy behind it?

reply to post by Cassius666


You position is unusual. Do you assume that those who generally agree with the NIST report will wander about telling everyone they meet that they "agree with the NIST report?" Do you think that this is how the world works or do you think that maybe those that disagree gripe and those that agree or don't care say nothing?

reply to post by pteridine


To PLB, sorry I got carried away. Somebody lied to you or you are missinformed about both, that you get fired over "crackpot theories" and that the majority sides with the official version. According to a poll cbs/new york times poll from 2006 only 16% think the goverment is telling the truth on that matter.

And pteridine, there have been many cases where academics speaking out against the official story have been "dealt with", most recently jones. In 2001 an professor calling the official version into question has been sacked over a letter signed by no less than 63 senators demanding he be fired. This is just one more fact you choose to ignore. If it means nothing to you, I can only hope your ideas in your head will make you happy.

reply to post by Cassius666


That poll can't go without a reference. Polls are often very misleading, and completely wrong conclusions are drawn from them.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by pteridine

 

And pteridine, there have been many cases where academics speaking out against the official story have been "dealt with", most recently jones. In 2001 an professor calling the official version into question has been sacked over a letter signed by no less than 63 senators demanding he be fired. This is just one more fact you choose to ignore. If it means nothing to you, I can only hope your ideas in your head will make you happy.

That would mean that some might not speak out but would not necessarily cause others to proclaim their support in public forums to avoid the secret police. If people started doing that, I would worry. Academics who have actual evidence and not just "gut feelings" or an axe to grind may not face retribution. So far, no one has come forward with actual evidence, so we do not know.

reply to post by pteridine


Like I said, I am not on a mission to "convert" anybody. I hope all your happy thoughts make you happy.