Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Dave Thomas Pulls Iron Spheres Out Of His Hat

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"

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."
Thomas: "I've added some more SEM and EDX scans to the JREF post (see the link in About), page 2, post #65. These show very plainly that some components of the unburned paint samples most definitely have iron"

Zugam: "OH so u withheld data? What else u not telling us? Some components of the paint have fe, or the beams, or contamination? Maybe if someone were to take a better look, sphere contamination would be also found in your data? If you think your result can be replicated/confirmed in a lab with CLEAN samples, TRY to publish data, or lets call it pseudoscience. Now cue your excuse for not publishing."

No direct response to above post, but Mr Thomas posts new comment:
"I must say it appears the Truthers are actually quite concerned that this work demolishes their revered Dr. Harrit, and are over-reacting to preserve his image at any cost."

Zugam: "I was wondering what u would do to avoid talking about doing a valid experiment in a lab and publishing results - Nice distraction Dave, I guess u do what you have to, to try to preserve your image, since you can´t publish your fraudulent data. It is a pity youtube does not have a journal."
Mr. Thomas has moved the goal-post in response to his failure, but his attempt at twisting Harrit´s remark about the difference between conventional combustion and a thermite reaction into a claim that only thermite creates molten iron is transparent and absurd:
 Thomas: "Now that I have the attention of aneta.org obfuscants like Ziggi, "Hello!" Don't you agree that this video shows Dr. Harrit's assertion above is simply wrong? If you don't agree, please state how and where you think I smuggled in the Thermite, and how I ignited it. :)"
Zugam: "Harrit is absolutely right, only thermite burn forms reduced iron. U should know by now after your stupid "steel wool" video, if you burn metal conventionally u end up with an oxide. It is of course possible to get molten and reduced iron by other ways than thermite, but that means specialized smelters and very special conditions. I should not have to spoon feed you this info since this is all laid out in the same chapter of our article that you quote. Your 2 spheres are ext. contamination"
In sum, the three most likely sources for Mr. Thomas´s spheres are:

1. The spheres are already present as filler material in the paint.
2. Dave (accidentally?) made those spheres himself while he cut those beams via the friction from a cutting wheel, or a band-saw.
3. He partially carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the contaminated barrel before he lit the fire. Or he simply did not properly record or report the oxygen content.

Part 3. At the beginning of this article I mention that Mr. Thomas made his new YouTube video in response to the essay where I and Mr. Talboo cover the Harrit vs Millette debate. We end that essay by repeating  Steven Jones´ 2009 public challenge to people like Mr. Thomas: publish your rebuttal in a reviewed journal if you expect us to take you seriously.

Readers should note that the demand for testing in a clean lab environment is especially prudent given how Mr. Thomas and his JREF friends totally ignored the spherical evidence when truthers brought it to the table, on the grounds that the spheres were such a common contaminant in an urban environment. The fact that Mr. Thomas backs away from challenges to move on from YouTube videos to a reviewed journal is especially sad given how his JREF buddies used to ridicule YouTube science.

As we have seen, Mr. Thomas cannot deliver a reviewed paper because he has no evidence that the barrel-fire formed any new spheres, let alone that the paint formed any spheres. I have of course notified Rev. Chris Mohr, the leader of the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, that Mr. Thomas is aware of the fact that his data is invalid and unpublishable. The question remains whether or not Rev. Mohr will pretend to NOT know it in yet another YouTube video?

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?

Donate to help Mark Basile finish his work at: http://markbasile.org