Originally Posted September 9, 2013
Updated March 4, March 14, and April 25, 2014.
Note new article about Dave´s previous steel-wool experiment: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/04/steel-wool-iron-spheres-debunked-again.html
Part 1. Apparently, CSI´s Dave Thomas has read part two of our essay, including the concise debunking of his steel wool YouTube video which was supposed to debunk Dr. Harrit´s claim that conventional combustion has never been observed to leave behind the molten iron-rich spheres produced via a thermite reaction. Mr. Thomas failed to notice his multiple gross experimental errors and the fact that he did not yield the desired iron-rich spheres: he failed to understand the difference between "iron rich" spheres and the iron-oxide spheres obtained via conventional combustion (such as cenospheres) even though we have tried for years to make Thomas et al. understand - see this example.
In response to our debunking of his prior experiment, Mr. Thomas has posted another youtube video where he claims to have gotten iron spheres via conventional combustion. Again he has invalid data due to his incompetence - that he cannot even dream about getting reviewed and published - and he knows it, as can be gleaned from the comment section by the video. Let´s start with his premise of having countered the announcement in the second part of our essay that, "Even some of the most ardent supporters of the paint-hypothesis have admitted that no-one has ever documented examples of paints leaving behind those molten spheres." The original premise of the new video is triumphantly answering back "UNTIL NOW", but Mr. Thomas had to add a disclaimer, having received some enlightening comments:
"OK, I annotated the video to say "It would be more correct to say that no one has documented examples of burning painted steel beams and leaving behind those spheres...UNTIL NOW.""April 25, 2014 update: As we shall see, Mr. Thomas cannot establish whether or not the fire actually formed any new spheres at all, and Dave knows the experiment is unpublishable for this reason. Most likely the spheres are filler material from the paint or external fly-ash contamination, perhaps partially reduced in the barrel. Note that we are at this point trusting Mr. Thomas for his conclusion that his two spheres are in fact solid "iron rich" spheres, not iron-oxide spheres or hollow oxidized cenospheres, even though this trust is unwarranted: The proper recording of oxygen levels by the EDS depends on the professional capability and integrity of the experimenter, but Dave is not known for either quality as discussed in a recent article about his fraudulent steel-wool experiment.
Part 2. My informal correspondence with Mr. Thomas on his YouTube channel speaks for itself. Editing, underlining and bolding of YouTube-comments done by author for this article:
Zugam says: "Results that cannot be replicated by others and published are pseudoscience. Pretty much as kawika7777 says, repeat with a clean piece in lab conditions to eliminate plentiful possible contributors of irons sphere contamination, and prove that the paint FORMS the spheres as you claim. Then publish your data if you still stand by your claim"By the way, a real scientist has tested paints in lab conditions, and so far no samples have ignited and left behind molten spheres of any kind. Mark Basile has also confirmed that the red layer of the active thermitic red/gray chips studied by Harrit et al. contains Fe2O3 and aluminum, ignites at about 430°(C) and leaves behind molten iron spheres with aluminum-oxide. Can anyone replicate that with paint?
Thomas responds: "..there was never any direct contact between the steel beam and the burn barrel itself. I scraped some paint from the bea[m] for examination, choosing a spot that had no ash smudges from the wood."
Zugam: "No contact does not mean no contamination, as you should have figured out when you had to scrape a spot with no ash smudges. You also have to eliminate possibility of spheres as filler material in the paint. Getting iron spheres from [lead-chromate] paint is quite the trick! You actually think you got liquid molten iron which requires about 1500 degrees while not getting any molten led-chrom which requires only 850?"
Thomas: "...paint DOES have other constituents, including iron, and the beam itself has lots of iron."
Zugam: ""Paint" has iron? Paint in general? Your own XEDS for your paint, that is the pre-burn XEDS, does not show any iron, only led-chro."
Donate to help Mark Basile finish his work at: http://markbasile.org