Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Feb 7, 2009.
I see, laugh ;-). Thanks for explaining it.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Could you explain the humour please?
I really don't think it has now either; however, as you make clear later, saying that it's thermitic now but now when the WTC buildings were standing wouldn't help his case; he would have to be arguing that it was thermitic when the WTC buildings had their paint coats done.
Hm. I think the only way Trippy's argument would work is if the paint -was- thermitic when the WTC buildings were constructed but has now become unthermitic. In the past he has said that he doesn't believe that the paint was thermitic. Ofcourse, he has never said that he believes that that the paint may have been thermietic in the past per se, so perhaps we should wait for him to elaborate on this.
Yet you are still responding to any post that doesn’t specifically challenge something you said.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That is not what this thread is about. Take your cause to another thread.
Honesty and integrity apply as well. You make claims you can't defend so you go quiet and then make excuses why you refuse to answer. This isn’t something you can deny Scott, the posts are there to be seen in this thread.
Yet you are still responding to all my posts.
But you are still responding to theses posts. With each response you prove my point. You just refuse to back up your claims.
Since when do you own the term ‘half baked’?
So, in future, don’t mock Trippy’s arguments when you don't even understand them (you didn't at the time) and actually respond to challenges to your posts. If you don’t want to respond do not keep repeating the original claims as if you never saw the criticism. Understand that Scott.
You are referring to the Madrid Page? That is the last time you used those words. I asked you to summarise the most important points made on that page in just a few sentences. You refused.
Yes you use lots of smilies and you don’t swear. However people take the time to critique what you say Scott. They spend time writing posts with links and explanations. If you to just act as if you never saw it, and then continue to make your arrogant and sarcastic claims then people will point out how pathetic that is. More recently you have been challenged to reply many times and you refuse. Then you pretend that you didn’t see the (many) posts and you claim that you wont respond because of harsh words (which actually only came after your constant evasion). You are in no position to lecture on manners.
You’re apparently forgotten then end of the paragraph – “until the opponent finally has to acknowledge that he or she has no defense against it.” Some things have been repeated to you many times. It is clear that you have no defense but you refuse to acknowledge it.
No. Re-read my comment. I said “. It is clear you are avoiding defending your posts.”.
Oh you want me to back up what I said? Should I start making excuses now?
I think WTC7 squib claims used to be on their home page in the pitiful list of controlled demolition characteristics. Until this ..
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
One of the statements is still wrong, therefore I have contradicted at least one thing you've said, which automatically implies that at least two of your statements are wrong.
Seeing as how you can't figure it out for yourself, allow me to spell it out for you.
Harrits entire conjecture is based around the assumption that the composition of the Pigment is the same then, as it is now.
Materials Safety and Data sheets were only introduced in a standardized format in 1992, as a result of the Rio Conference on Environment and Development, which also gave birth to the Globaly Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (the UNGHS I refered to at one point).
The SDS only conveys information that was correct at the time of it's last update, so it can be no older than 1992.
The SDS itself says that it was authored in March 2009, however there is nothing, that I have seen that explicitly states that the Tnemec 99 pigment, that used Talc in March 2009 also used Talc between 1967 and 1971, and there's any one of a number of reasonable reasons why they might have changed the composition between March 2009 and July 1971.
If the composition of the primer has changed between when the twin towers were finished in July 1971 and when the MSDS was authored in March 2009, then it is completely relevant, because Harrit's assertions, and your assertions are based on the assumption that the composition of the proprietry pigment was the same then as it is now. If, for example, Kaolin was being used at the time the towers were constructed, and at some point between then and the authoring of the SDS, they switched to Talc, your assertions, and harrits, regarding the relative amounts of aluminium are unfounded and erroneous.
Just like Harrit could be lying about the source of the dust, or it's physicochemical properties eh?
Again, allow me to repeat myself.
Harrit's figure 17 is consistent with Alumina, or Corundum, or any other form of Aluminium Oxide.
Got that reference spectrum for Aluminium yet?
In those two sentences you reveal that you are completely ignorant of EDS spectra.
Whatever you're taking, I hope there's a perscription that goes with it.
actually, it's not particularly complicated, it's spelled out in black and white, and it takes very little research to find out what the role of Linseed oil in pain is.
That's not the point that I'm making at all.
Remember, I'm asserting that the exotherm was due to the combustion of the hydrocarbon base of the paint, and can prduce Hydrocarbon DSC's that have comparable features.
My point was that the substitution of Kaolin for Talc might have been an innovation that happened at some point after the towers were constructed, but before the SDS was authored.
1. The material is clearly nano-engineered with extremely small aluminium platelets intimately mixed with iron oxide held together within a solgel matrix with carbon and silicon, in a consistent arrangement and size.
2. BSE images show the clear profile of the elements in the red-chip: -
Notice the presence of aluminium relative to oxygen too.
3. I have demonstrated clearly that X-EDS profiles of the red-chip have been significantly different depending on cross-sectional focus, focus on the surface (designed to pick up contaminants), and post-MEK separation which allowed more accurate analysis of individual elements independent of the binding matrix. Tests have been done, and by conventional methods of identification through X-EDS (remember, the same methods that I posted in the criminal forensics of identifying thermite) they found aluminium exceeding oxygen 3:1.
4.Your idea that the properietary element of the primer paint may have changed, is a fair point. However, the presence of Zinc is clearly one of the main components and it barely registers above the baseline noise in the X-EDS tests on the red-chips. Another problem is that chromate barely registers above the baseline too.
5. You continue to talk about hydrocarbon peaks and ignore the fact that tests have been done on the WTC paint where it did not react violently - unlike the red-chips which reacted violently at below 500C and produced molten iron spheres. This is lower than conventional thermite. Now, you can argue all you want but paint compositions are NOT thermitic and are designed expressly to be chemically stable under fire and heat.
I quote again from the paper: -
I wish you would drop this bullshit about it being primer paint. You have no evidence to back up your assertions, and you scoff at these scientists who have actually tested the material to see if they are thermitic. Your continuing obfuscations and deceptions are doing damage to good science and the truth movement, and making newcomers assume that the basic findings are contested. In reality, they are only contested by people who have no scientific argument to stand on.
Now try listening for a minute ####wit.
ANY well mixed paint that contains chemically precipitated ferric oxide is going to have the apperance of being a nanoengineered composite of some kind.
Yes, i've linked to this very image previously, or were you too busy with the whole Shill rehtoric to notice?
It clearly shows that there is almost nowhere on the chip where Silicon occurs without Aluminium, and it clearly shows that there is nowhere on the chip where aluminium occurs without oxygen.
Harrit himself implicitly aknowledges the second point when he dismisses the fact that aluminium does not occur without oxygen as being the ever present layer of alumina that aluminium always have.
If you think you've proven that the Aluminium exists anywhere without Oxygen you're contradicting your own ####ing source!
The link you posted was devoid of actual details.
It gave no exampels of reference spectra, made no mention of relative peak heights, and doesn't ptove what you're claiming it does.
You have demonstrated one thing and one thing only - that you're ignorant of the short comings of EDS spectra, and the effects that sample geometry and morphology can have on peak height due to the xrays being absorbed by the sample being analyzed.
This is simply wrong.
The most dominant elements are Carbon and Oxygen, followed by Iron and Silicon, and then maybe Zinc.
I've already addressed this point you ####### #####.
First off, i'm not the one making claims about Thermitic paints. YOU ARE.
I have made NO SUCH CLAIM.
I've challeneged you to link to me making this claim before, and you haven't because you can't.
The point that you have overlooked and dismissed completely is the fact that the paint that was heated and lacked the properties you described was on steel that hadn't already been exposed to fire.
The reason this is important, seeing as how you obviously don't understand it, is that as the paint peels, in places scales of iron oxide adhere to the paint. This Iron Oxide can act as an Oxidant, as it does in the friggin thermite , to react with the carbon and cause ignition. A reaction that otherwise wouldn't happen in the paint because there isn't enough iron oxide in the frigging pigment to initiate this reaction.
Do you understand yet the difference, or what I'm saying?
Heating steel that has not been exposed to a fire, or previously heated, and has no peeled paint with iron oxide scales, to heating a small chip of paint that has an equivalent mass of iron oxide scale on it?
Have you figured out yet that should the situation arise where structural steel is exposed to a fire for a second time that the fact that the chips that harrit examined ignited doesn't mean the whole dam building is going to go up in flames? It simply implies that there might be a few localized 'ignitions', but the paint as a whole will fail to ignite.
You're the one lacking evidence.
You have yet to even produce ONE SINGLE reference spectrum that resembles ANY of the spectra that Harrit collected.
Tell me something, if the material is genuinely thermitic, why didn't Harrit heat it in an inert atmosphere?
If it's geuinely Thermite, why can't you produce a single EDS that confirms this?
If it genuinely has plates of Aluminium in it, why didn't it react with the MEK?
The list goes on and on and on.
The ONLY person guilty of obfuscation, deception, and damaging basic science is you.
Harrit's paper FAILS to display good basic science, and good basic scientific experimental design, and fails to prove what he claims it does.
Why don't you give this nanothermite bullshit up? It's clearly dead in the water.
No shaman_. Once again, I prefer to respond to posts that are light on insults. Perhaps because the very gist of these posts that I've been making to you are on the subject of insults, you've been going light on them, and so this conversation has kept on going.
shaman_, I created this thread. Yes, its primary purpose was to talk about 9/11, but I would contend that the reason it's still alive is precisely because I have put in some effort to try to make it a relatively civilized affair.
Hoz, I think that you are saying many things that I believe are helping us, but I ask you to stop using terms like "bullshit". It's not helping. The results have become so predictable that it's painful to watch. You use terms like that, Trippy gets upset and fires back and in the process both of you may lose track of the fact that maybe, just maybe, neither of you are actually dumb or tin foil hatters, or government plants; maybe this issue just isn't as simple as it seems. Perhaps one of the most important things here is something that you're not realizing; Trippy has already noted that he doesn't have the time to go through the calculations of Niels Harrit. Perhaps if he did, he'd realize he's right. As to your arguments Hoz, I definitely think you're above me in chemistry knowledge, but even with my rudimentary understanding of chemistry, I'm afraid that Trippy does indeed know more than you on it. He has said that he's a chemist. Are you? If not, why can't you give Trippy more of the benefit of the doubt. Obviously I'm in your camp on 9/11, but I think that regardless of the camp you're in, civility is generally key to any discussion.
I have said in the past that perhaps the reason we haven't been able to put up things like aluminium spectrums is because we don't have too many chemists in the 9/11 truth movement. Perhaps you have brought up what is essentially an aluminium spectrum by now, not sure. But my key point is that it would be nice to have more people who actually understood all this chemical stuff; right now, I think you're the closest thing in our camp. But I believe I have a deep understanding of underyling things and there is one issue I've focused on closely; namely that Trippy -is- a chemist. And sure, he's on the opposing side for now but he -is- talking and as far as I can tell, telling us a great deal concerning chemistry. You ever hear the sentence "The more you know, the more you know you don't know?". I think it applies beautifully here. When one doesn't know much, solutions to problems may seem fairly straightforward. Trippy, however, is a chemist. I think it stands to reason, therefore, that he knows a fair amount concerning chemistry. But that very knowledge may cause him to see many more possible reasons why the apparent nano thermite that Niels Harrit found may not, in fact, be nano thermite.
There is something that I have been thinking of for a long time- what if we could show Trippy that nano thermite is the most likely explanation? Wouldn't that be something? Because then, suddenly, instead of having the chemist in the opposition's ranks, we'd have him on -our- side. What I fear is that comments like the one above will discourage him before he can get to that point. And it goes even further than Trippy himself. You notice, for instance, that Trippy is friends with Oli? Oli is a mechanical engineer. He participated a bit in this thread just a bit before Tony started. If you could just show him a bit more civility perhaps he'd talk to his friend and Oli could come back, perhaps have a civilized discussion with Tony on some engineering aspects. Perhaps in time, we could have -2- mechanical engineers in this forum who disagree with the official story.
Let me put it this way- even if, as you have suggested, Trippy is a "shill", what good does it do if you insult him? I think there are many times when insulting a person says little of the person being insulted and much more of the temperament of the person doing the insulting. So, I ask you, please.. let's not go there.
I contend that I make claims I -can- defend, but you make so many insults that I'm no longer interested in defending them with -you-. Trippy's speciality is chemisty, which isn't exactly my forte, but I've been trying to follow him anyway. Why? Because he's generally far more civil than you are.
shaman_, just because -you- think I'm making excuses doesn't mean it's true. The posts are certainly in this thread; if you want to make your case, by all means present an exhibit.
Because you've temporarily become more civilized; the fact that I've focused on your insults and their effect on me as well as the fact that we're not discussing 9/11 in this subthread may have something to do with it.
You can call an insult your own without owning it.
I believe that me and Trippy have reached an understanding. There was a point which even he acknowledged he dodged, however. This is that while I don't deny that I have in the past insulted him, my insults were far lighter than his.
I've responded to tons of challenges, from you as well as from others. The fact that you apparently haven't noticed doesn't speak well of your powers of perception.
shaman_, I'll warrant there are times where I truly haven't seen x or y criticism. As I've mentioned in the past, this thread is large and I can't be expected to read every post directed at me. Secondly, I'm sure there are other times when you or someone else has mentioned something and I believe I countered any objections. So ofcourse I would then go on to make the claims I'd made in the past, believing that I'd countered any objections in the past as well.
The whole thing is chalk full of important points. If you want, we can go over them, point by point; but my condition is that you remain civilized.
shaman_, I ask you to re-read what I will call the "chess" post. Secondly, I contend that I have repeated many claims precisely because the points are valid and they weren't truly debunked. It reminds me of one of Mackey's arguments, that Jim Hoffman debunked. Mackey supposedly countered Hoffman's debunking, but even I could say that his alleged debunking was nothing more than more fluff.
You'd have to cite an example; without one, you have no case. I can easily imagine that it has to do with the fact that the post(s) I'm being asked to reply to are insult laden.
Now here I have you. See, unlike you, I'm in my head, so I -know- that I'm not "pretending" anything of the sort. My claim that I won't respond because of harsh words is 100% accurate, whether you want to believe it or not. Why the harsh words got there is besides the point.
Perhaps you should ask Trippy if he thinks that's an accurate assessment.
If I truly had no defense, the key would be to simply keep on repeating the assertions in a civilized manner; the insults actually give me good cause to ignore anything else in the posts; hardly a winning strategy.
So you did. My apologies. Anyway, you already know my views on that assertion.
Up to you.
Clearly we don't agree on that "pitiful" assertion.
Yes, truthers aren't always right. You'll note, however, that he hasn't exactly said that WTC 7 wasn't taken down by controlled demolition, however. Rather, he admitted that a certain contention of his is probably wrong, although you'll note that he "still can't understand why the smoke wouldn't be "billowing" up and out of the damaged opening more than it is."
I've even given you some hints on how this might be acheived.
Provide an EDS of powdered, or nano aluminium that shows the same features as Harrits aluminium rich areas.
Provide an EDS of a sample of paint collected from the WTC steel, or equivalent paint
Conduct a DSC analysis of a piece of paint from the WTC steel (or equivalent paint), that has adhered to a piece of iron oxide scale and prove that it reacts differently from Harrits samples
Use EELS or an equivalent method to demonstrate that the aluminum in the aluminium rich areas is Al(0) rather than AL(III)
Demonstrate that nano-aluminium WON'T react with MEK
Demonstrate that MEK WILL dissolve paint from WTC, or an equivalent paint
Perform a thin slice EDS on Harrits Samples to prove that the indicator elements he says are missing for paint are in fact missing
Conduct the DSC analysis in an inert atmosphere
Demonstrate that Tnemec has not changed the formula of 99 Red in the 38 years since the twin towers were completed
Demonstrate the existence of the temperatures that have been asserted
Prove that, at the very least, on the balance of probabilities, synthesizing 10-100 ton quantities was viable prior to 2001
11 points, that I would expect any scientest or emperical skeptic to question, based on Harrit's paper. On a personal level, I will accept no less than the demonstration of all 11.
Some relate to proving that the chip isn't paint, and some relate to proving that the substance is actually thermite.
The point that I have explained, and that has been largely ignored is that I don't need to prove that it is paint to demonstrate that it isn't aluminoferric nanothermite. I only have to prove that it isn't thermite.
I would also genuinely like to see some proof of provenance other than sworn affidavits, sure, they may be legally robust, but from my perspective as an emperical skeptic, they're virtually worthless without other information.
Allow me to elaborate on something.
When I say 'an equivalent paint' I don't mean a fresh sample straight from the can. I mean a sample that's been cured the same way the WTC paint was baked the same way that the WTC paint was baked, and then left to cure in a seaside enviroment for 30+ years, then heated to 600°C-800°C, the temperature that photographic evidence suggests is required to reproduce the patterns of cracking, and degree peeling observed on the WTC steel.
I beg to differ, I would argu that your insults were equally heavy, the only difference is, I was up front with mine, and yours were thinly veiled.
I’m going to skip through some of your posts here. You are just repeating the same lies over and over and it is going nowhere. If you see a comment that you wanted me to respond to then mention it and I wont play dishonest games to avoid a response.
So you are eager to defend your behaviour (demonstrated by your regular responses) but refuse to defend your 9/11 claims? Can you see how stupid that sounds?
Scott you struggle against the laymen.
This is the sixth time I have posted this quote.
"In the case of the WTC 7 they actually managed to create a clearly flawed simulation of collapse, but just looking at it with a skeptical eye should make it clear how flawed it was."
Three weeks ago, no insults and I have asked several times since. I want to know what was so obviously flawed with the simulation. Just a few lines. If it was so obvious it shouldn't be hard. Yet no response…just excuses.
I also asked you to explain your favourite Madrid Tower page but you won’t. There was no abuse in those posts but you ignored them. You realise that Kenny asked for responses on Scott Forbes, WTC7 and others several times before he called you pathetic. You are being a child.
I'll see what I can do.
That's understandable. The main problem is that the officials in charge of the investigation were fairly thorough in their destruction of the evidence.
Not sure if that could be provided without waiting 30 years Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. However, again, I'll see what I can do.
Separate names with a comma.