Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Steven Jones started the work years before.
Dishonor on you for not understanding that.
Harrit received samples from Jones and then composed a paper with others.
Basille and Farrer got samples from Jones and got other samples from Museums that had WTC dust.
They signed the Harrit paper because they agreed with the paper findings.

This was the argument
You

Jeffrey Farrer and Basille

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

Jeffrey Farrer? The quote, cite, and link to published results that confirmed Harrit’s results?

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
*,1 2 *,3 4 5 Niels H. Harrit , Jeffrey Farrer , Steven E. Jones , Kevin R. Ryan , Frank M. Legge ,
2673 DanielFarnsworth,GreggRoberts,JamesR.Gourley andBradleyR.Larsen

Look at that, Jeffrey Farrer is not an independent analysis. Shame on you acting like Jeffrey Farrer was independent.

I guess I better be more specific..,

You never did answer this either. Is it true other individuals have tried to replicate Harrit’s team results. And is it false all the documented attempts failed. Nobody has confirmed Harrit’s results. Is that false.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Guess will never see your experiment Iron oxide and 430c creates Iron molten spheres?
I just take it you made a false claim.

This is the argument

You

You have not got the subject since we started.
You still failing the first hurdle.
Laclede paint is Aluminum silicate and iron oxide.
The fact molten Iron balls and spheres formed on the burned chip can only have been caused by temp over 1500c+

And you

You denying what shown in the paper.
The heated the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.

You just stated “ The heated the red/gray chips to 430c and molten Iron formed on the burned chip.”

Again...

LaClede Standard Primer has iron oxide. If it burns at 430 Celsius, why would it not make iron microspheres?


Can you cite from the Harrit / Jones paper the chips were measured burning at a temperature greater than 430C?


Again

New Mexicans for Science and Reason present

9-11 'Truth' Resources

By Dave Thomas

www.nmsr.org...

www.nmsr.org...

For the record, I still contend that burning the steel wool did indeed produce iron-rich microspheres. I have no problem with the fact that the iron might be in the form of iron oxide. If Zugam thinks my iron-rich microspheres "don't count" because of their oxygen content, then he should immediately contact Harrit, et. al., and inform them that their own "iron-rich microspheres" ARE ALSO IRON OXIDES! These images from my experiments, and from the Bentham Open paper prove this point! If the WTC spheres were themselves pure iron, they would not exhibit the large Oxygen spike in Harrit's XEDS spectrum.

Snip

On a related note, in February 2012, I posted a letter from Rich Lee of the R. J. Lee Group at the James Randi Educational Forum (JREF). This company's post-9/11 report (2003) on WTC dust samples mentioned microscopic spheres of iron, which truthers have long maintained could only have been formed with thermite, thus proving their controlled demolition/inside job claim. Ron Wieck, who produces the internet debate program Hardfire, recently asked the R. J. Lee Group to clarify what they thought about the iron microspheres, and Rich Lee himself answered (in part) "What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed by sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and the fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. … The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces. – Rich Lee"

By Mick West

Burning Paint Chips #1. www.metabunk.org...

I bashed off a bunch of pain chips from my red painted steel wheelbarrow and waved a butane flame over them. Result = iron microspheres

Here's a scale comparison with the Harrit microspheres (left) and mine (right).

Of note, in both their photos and mine the red layer appears undamaged. Curious, since that's supposed to be the one that's nanothermite. What seems to have happened is the iron oxide layer has "burnt" (perhaps with some of the paint, of some intermediate layer), and created some iron microspheres.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s start with this blatant falsehood you posted and tried to blame was it Jones for?

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Let’s add this one in..,

Or like you posted the below picture as proof of thermite when it was obviously cut and sooted up by a cutting torch?

You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Any person with self worth would have apologized after getting caught posting the falsehoods like you post. Or would have quietly disappear by now.

Staggering that everyone produce evidence and you still claim they're nothing there. You far worse than Ruby. You just on the other side of the debate. Least Ruby partly right there was a conspiracy on 9/11, even though i don't see evidence for his claim about the Pentagon attack. 
Read what i repeated. It took place inside the building.
Debunkers claim the corrosion took place outside the building over a period of weeks!
The evidence assembled refutes that opinion.
Your posts make no sense and don't answer the points made.
You show how 500c heat caused the steel to melt outside the building? That's what FEMA claimed the steel melted. How else would the Iron of Liquid "form" during the attack?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You show how 500c heat caused the steel to melt outside the building?

You don’t even have proof of melted steel.

The whole argument

This is the argument

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

Note. Added on. Please cite where frozen pools of melted steel were found at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

You find all this info in this study.
www.fema.gov...

This is actual heat in the rubble a day or two after 9/11

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Let’s start with this blatant falsehood you posted and tried to blame was it Jones for?

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Let’s add this one in..,

Or like you posted the below picture as proof of thermite when it was obviously cut and sooted up by a cutting torch?

You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

And this blatant falsehood by you

Basille were independent scentists who contacted Steve Jones for samples to test. They confirmed the chips had thermitic properties.

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

neutronflux Can you read the second slide? They confirm melting.

Thats why the elementary sulfur is crucial for this theory to work.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux Can you read the second slide? They confirm melting.

Thats why the elementary sulfur is crucial for this theory to work.

Read what? That steel was liquified by a chemical and corrosive attack?

Your afraid of stating another blatant falsehood?

Again. The whole argument

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You show how 500c heat caused the steel to melt outside the building?

You don’t even have proof of melted steel.

The whole argument

This is the argument

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

Note. Added on. Please cite where frozen pools of melted steel were found at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

When you work out out this developed inside the building. The truther argument is far stronger than mainstream theory fire brought it down. I suspect NIST evaded this as would create more problems for them to explain how did steel evaporate inside the WTC7 building not hit by a plane?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What is it like that you killed your credibility?

Again..

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux Can you read the second slide? They confirm melting.

Thats why the elementary sulfur is crucial for this theory to work.

Read what? That steel was liquified by a chemical and corrosive attack?

Your afraid of stating another blatant falsehood?

Again. The whole argument

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You show how 500c heat caused the steel to melt outside the building?

You don’t even have proof of melted steel.

The whole argument

This is the argument

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

Note. Added on. Please cite where frozen pools of melted steel were found at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Short list of your blatant falsehoods. Why would anyone find you credible at this point?


Let’s start with this blatant falsehood you posted and tried to blame was it Jones for?

Stop repeating things I have previously answered.
Harrit chips were analyzed in inert atmosphere.

Let’s add this one in..,

Or like you posted the below picture as proof of thermite when it was obviously cut and sooted up by a cutting torch?

You

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
For me this evidence of cut steel by nanothermite.
Same steel piece- and exposed to high heat.

Why would I trust anything you post at this point?

So? There is no evidence of cut columns? So you fabricated your own mythology? Sad.

And this blatant falsehood by you

Basille were independent scentists who contacted Steve Jones for samples to test. They confirmed the chips had thermitic properties.

Really. Shame. Another blatant falsehood.

Any Updates on Mark Basile's Study?
We skipped August.

66 months now.

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Basile never published results of testing that confirmed Harrit’s results.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
When you work out out this developed inside the building. The truther argument is far stronger than mainstream theory fire brought it down. I suspect NIST evaded this as would create more problems for them to explain how did steel evaporate inside the WTC7 building not hit by a plane?

No. The truth movement position is crap. Staring with how would any controlled demolition system survive the jet impacts and fires in the twin towers to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors of the jet impacts as shown by the video evidence.

You posting falsehoods, heat was 500c a day or two after the collapse.
Meaning temp going to keep going down.
Corrosion over the course of weeks is nonsense.
FEMA is adamant this concoction liquid mixture of Iron and Sulfur was formed in 1000c heat and the sulfur was reducing the melting point of steel.
This is just failure by the debunker community to notice things published for years.
500c heat not enough to even start the corrison FEMA thought may have happened in the ground long term.

This is evidence belonging to USGS.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
You posting falsehoods, heat was 500c a day or two after the collapse.
Meaning temp going to keep going down.
Corrosion over the course of weeks is nonsense.
FEMA is adamant this concoction liquid mixture of Iron and Sulfur was formed in 1000c heat and the sulfur was reducing the melting point of steel.
This is just failure by the debunker community to notice things published for years.
500c heat not enough to even start the corrison FEMA thought may have happened in the ground long term.

This is evidence belonging to USGS.

And your still inviting the argument and not answer questions. Your creating your own BS mythology.

The whole argument.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

What is it like that you killed your credibility?

Again..

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
neutronflux Can you read the second slide? They confirm melting.

Thats why the elementary sulfur is crucial for this theory to work.

Read what? That steel was liquified by a chemical and corrosive attack?

Your afraid of stating another blatant falsehood?

Again. The whole argument

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

You show how 500c heat caused the steel to melt outside the building?

You don’t even have proof of melted steel.

The whole argument

This is the argument

What is the melting point of steel?

You keep talking about melted steel. You have not posted evidence that the pile reached temperatures to melt steel.

You keep posting evidence of corrosions that occurred at temperatures less these the melting point of steel.

What temperature does you source cited state the corrosion occurred. What is the melting point of steel?

Note. Added on. Please cite where frozen pools of melted steel were found at the WTC?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

Your claiming melted steel.

Look at the pictures you posted.



A corrosion attack thinned the metal. That is not melting. Look at how thin the chemical attack made the steel in areas. Despite the thinning, that thin steel is maintaining the geometry that piece was formed into when it was manufactured. If the piece reached its melting point, the remaining thin metal would not have held its shape. The steel is wasted from chemical attack. The piece is not deformed be cause the steel reached its melting point. Huge difference

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
When you work out out this developed inside the building. The truther argument is far stronger than mainstream theory fire brought it down. I suspect NIST evaded this as would create more problems for them to explain how did steel evaporate inside the WTC7 building not hit by a plane?

No. The truth movement position is crap. Staring with how would any controlled demolition system survive the jet impacts and fires in the twin towers to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors of the jet impacts as shown by the video evidence.

You missed the fact nanothermite reacts to heat= fire.. 
It not harmful to nanothermite fire is present.
It unlikely it would even ignite with no heat!

a reply to: Hulseyreport

Another falsehood by you

FEMA is adamant this concoction liquid mixture of Iron and Sulfur was formed in 1000c heat and the sulfur was reducing the melting point of steel.

Is it false the report actually stated approaching 1000c. You posting “ formed in 1000c heat“ is intellectual dishonesty.

And what is the melting point of steel again? 1130 Celsius?

And cite were frozen pools of melted steel where recovered from the WTC? Oh, none?

How many violent steam explosions occurred when the pile was being actively sprayed with water from water reaching molten steel? Oh, none?

There is no proof of molten steel at the WTC. None.

neutronflux

Again read the report and stop assuming things.



They claim melting occurred, something that NIST denied.
This liquid mixture was mostly Iron and Sulfur. You can only have liquid Iron if a melting process began.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Hulseyreport
When you work out out this developed inside the building. The truther argument is far stronger than mainstream theory fire brought it down. I suspect NIST evaded this as would create more problems for them to explain how did steel evaporate inside the WTC7 building not hit by a plane?

No. The truth movement position is crap. Staring with how would any controlled demolition system survive the jet impacts and fires in the twin towers to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 on the floors of the jet impacts as shown by the video evidence.

You missed the fact nanothermite reacts to heat= fire.. 
It not harmful to nanothermite fire is present.
It unlikely it would even ignite with no heat!

The jet impacts would have knocked off and removed charges. The jet impacts and fires would have destroyed wiring and remote detonators. There is no way a controlled demolition system would have survived the jet impacts and fires to actuate on the floors of the jet impacts to initiate the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 as captured in the video evidence.

So. What new falsehood are you going to create now.