Related:
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Wayne Coste - CT AE 9/11 Truth - Why 13 Years Later We're Still Asking Questions
Published on Apr 16, 2014
WeAreChangeCT met up with Engineer,
Wayne Coste, a CT local from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
Steve asked Wayne about where he was on 9/11, and why almost 13 years
later is 9/11 still a relevant topic to focus upon.
To find out more about AE for 9/11 Truth check out their website: http://www.ae911truth.org/
Video/Edit/Interview: Steve Boutelle
Follow We Are Change CT on Twitter:
WeAreChangeCT @ https://twitter.com/WeAreChangeCT
Steve @ https://twitter.com/StevenBoutelle
Jeff @ http://twitter.com/Jeffwrcct
Check out our Website: http://www.wearechangect.org
Subscribe & Support: http://www.youtube.com/wearechangect
LIKE us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WRCCT
To find out more about AE for 9/11 Truth check out their website: http://www.ae911truth.org/
Video/Edit/Interview: Steve Boutelle
Follow We Are Change CT on Twitter:
WeAreChangeCT @ https://twitter.com/WeAreChangeCT
Steve @ https://twitter.com/StevenBoutelle
Jeff @ http://twitter.com/Jeffwrcct
Check out our Website: http://www.wearechangect.org
Subscribe & Support: http://www.youtube.com/wearechangect
LIKE us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WRCCT
Related:
9/11 Free Fall 6/22/12 (Wayne Coste Interview)
9/11 Free Fall 4/3/14: Debunking WTC "No Planer" Theories-- Disinformation vs. Scientific Evidence
Published on Apr 18, 2014
John-Michael Talboo joins Andy Steele to discuss disinformation, particularly the notion put out by a minority on the Internet that no airplanes hit the Twin Towers, and explains why logic and the facts don't support this claim. They also share their own opinions on whether they believe this theory has been put out intentionally to distract newcomers to the issue and discredit the 9/11 Truth movement, and go over the actual evidence for controlled demolition that activists should be focusing on.
John-Michael Talboo joins Andy Steele to discuss disinformation, particularly the notion put out by a minority on the Internet that no airplanes hit the Twin Towers, and explains why logic and the facts don't support this claim. They also share their own opinions on whether they believe this theory has been put out intentionally to distract newcomers to the issue and discredit the 9/11 Truth movement, and go over the actual evidence for controlled demolition that activists should be focusing on.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Steel-Wool Iron Spheres Debunked Again: Shame on NMSR´s Dave Thomas
Edited on May 28, 2014, red text revised in response to Dave´s ranting on http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm - See also new article: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/05/nmsrs-dave-thomas-has-melt-down-as-his.html
Mr. Dave Thomas announced on the JREF 9/11 forum, on the 19th of October, 2011, that he had posted a YouTube video called Iron microspheres prove Thermite? Despite some controversy, Mr. Thomas still advertizes the video on his NMSR webpage, where he states that:
Dave Thomas claims his YouTube experiment proves that normal fire temperatures easily form iron spheres, but this statement has three major problems: The first two problems are that the alleged "iron spheres" from his steel-wool experiment are neither iron nor spheres. The third problem is that Dave Thomas has known that his experiment is invalid since the day after the debut of the video, because his JREF forum colleague debunked it on the forum that day!
Part 1: Oystein confronted Dave Thomas on the JREF forum, the day after the initial release of the video, and debunked it from several different angles. Most notably, Oystein recognized that burning steel-wool nets iron-oxide, not iron:
But Oystein was too quick to assume that the JREF forum could live up to the standard of true skeptics, and MM was too quick to congratulate Dave for having integrity, because Dave Thomas re-posted the same old video again a couple of weeks later, in shortened form, without retracting the false-statement. Dave did however edit out the EDS reading that exposed his dishonesty: http://forums.randi.org/
None of Dave´s fellow "debunkers" on the JREF forum had a problem with that, and in 2014, Dave and friends continue to advertize the video and pretend to know nothing about the controversy. And that says all there is to say about the faithful pseudo-skeptics of the JREF forum: http://forums.randi.org/
Harrit´s comment on the so-called "spheres" not really being spheres intrigued me, so I did some research and found a paper that explains everything: The steel-wool itself does burn without flames, but there is no melted metal involved and therefore no actual spheres. Localized internal contaminants burn within the steel-wool wire and form gas which inflates the heat-softened wire. The result is a hollow semi-spherical product that is usually confined to the wire, or burdened with left-over horns from the wire if expelled. Dave Thomas´s original JREF post that announced the completion of the experiment has a photo of one of his horned, semi-spherical, iron-oxide "faux-spheres": http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7671740&postcount=12
Part 3: Dave Thomas happens to be the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, and NMSR states that the group,
Related articles:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/csicops-dave-thomas-thermodynamic-size.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/09/dave-thomas-pulls-iron-spheres-out-of.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/matching-peaks-part-2-dave-thomas.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/mohr-misunderstanding-rj-lee-did-not.html
Mr. Dave Thomas announced on the JREF 9/11 forum, on the 19th of October, 2011, that he had posted a YouTube video called Iron microspheres prove Thermite? Despite some controversy, Mr. Thomas still advertizes the video on his NMSR webpage, where he states that:
"The answer to the mystery of the microspheres - "Iron melts only at temperatures far higher than possible in normal fires, so how could microspheres have possibly been formed on 9/11?" – is simply that very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the "thermodynamic size effect." The towers contained thousands of computers and electric gadgets. Wires and filaments and meshes from electronics, as well as thin rust flakes and other small iron particles, could all have easily been made into microspheres during the WTC conflagration. To see a vivid demonstration of this phenomenon, watch the video on NMSR's YouTube channel, 'theNMSR', in which a BIC lighter is used to burn steel wool, creating numerous iron microspheres without any Thermite at all!"
The "thermodynamic size effect" does not apply to any materials at the WTC in 2001 because nano-sized iron was not yet commercially available small enough to benefit from the phenomenon. The video does not demonstrate it either because no melting is involved and no spheres are formed. Dave Thomas seems to believe that he has debunked the best evidence in Dr. Harrit´s 2009 nanothermite paper: the peculiar red/gray chips ignite at about 420C, and form the iron-rich spheres that several researchers discovered in the WTC dust. The spherical shape indicates previously melted iron and therefore a reaction temperature above 1400C, which is beyond the capability of conventional combustion in open air, including a jet-fueled building fire. Specialized high temperature coal furnaces can create spheres rich in iron-oxides, but the red/gray chips form spheres rich in elemental iron, and that is the hallmark of a thermite reaction.
Dave Thomas claims his YouTube experiment proves that normal fire temperatures easily form iron spheres, but this statement has three major problems: The first two problems are that the alleged "iron spheres" from his steel-wool experiment are neither iron nor spheres. The third problem is that Dave Thomas has known that his experiment is invalid since the day after the debut of the video, because his JREF forum colleague debunked it on the forum that day!
Part 1: Oystein confronted Dave Thomas on the JREF forum, the day after the initial release of the video, and debunked it from several different angles. Most notably, Oystein recognized that burning steel-wool nets iron-oxide, not iron:
"At 6:23, you commit a blunder, a false statement: "...spheres were indeed pure iron". Urr say what?" http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7687976& postcount=49
In response, Dave Thomas retracted the video the same day, and Oystein boasted to Miragememories that "...the difference between faithful truthers and skeptics: We listen to good criticism and hasten to correct our mistakes" And MM replied, "Nice to know Dave has some integrity." http://forums.randi.org/
But Oystein was too quick to assume that the JREF forum could live up to the standard of true skeptics, and MM was too quick to congratulate Dave for having integrity, because Dave Thomas re-posted the same old video again a couple of weeks later, in shortened form, without retracting the false-statement. Dave did however edit out the EDS reading that exposed his dishonesty: http://forums.randi.org/
None of Dave´s fellow "debunkers" on the JREF forum had a problem with that, and in 2014, Dave and friends continue to advertize the video and pretend to know nothing about the controversy. And that says all there is to say about the faithful pseudo-skeptics of the JREF forum: http://forums.randi.org/
Part 2: Someone noted another problem in January 2012, on the same thread that originally introduced Dave´s YouTube video. Steen Svanholm had performed the steel-wool experiment on Danish TV and received a response from Dr. Harrit, who stated that: "The particles he points to after the experiment are ironoxide and they are not round." http://forums.randi.org/
By this time, Oystein had decided to toe the line and obfuscate his previous observation of iron-oxide in the alleged "spheres," and Harrit´s observation about non-spheres was simply left unaddressed by Oystein and all the others: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7957237&postcount=113
By this time, Oystein had decided to toe the line and obfuscate his previous observation of iron-oxide in the alleged "spheres," and Harrit´s observation about non-spheres was simply left unaddressed by Oystein and all the others: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7957237&postcount=113
Part 3: Dave Thomas happens to be the president of New Mexicans for Science and Reason, and NMSR states that the group,
"consists of individuals, including scientists and non-professionals alike, who share the goals of promoting genuine science, the scientific method, and rational and critical thinking....We are skeptical, however, of those groups who misuse and misrepresent science. We oppose the use of fabrication, flawed logic, distortion of facts, and pseudoscientific propaganda by any and all groups who twist science to suit their own ends..."Yet, the president´s YouTube pseudo-science is the depiction of this kind of distortion of facts to suit an agenda. Dave´s re-posting of an experiment that has been falsified by his own colleague on his own forum is inexcusable. And a forum of proper skeptics would not tolerate this behavior, but nothing has changed since Dr. Greening gave up and left the JREF 9/11 forum in 2007, denouncing it for "smothering scientific debate". This kind of misconduct is currently known as pseudo-skepticism, and interestingly enough, it was none other than Marcello Truzzi who revived the term to describe these kinds of tactics. Truzzi was a founding member of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), which is currently called the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. CSI is known as the original forum of skeptics, the forerunner of JREF, and the publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer. Truzzi actually left CSI early on because he felt the members "tend to block honest inquiry" and "move the goal-posts" - echoing Dr. Greenings comments about the "debunkers" at the JREF 9/11 forum. Dave Thomas happens to be a member of CSI, but he is also a teacher of physics and critical thinking at New Mexico Tech, which is a much more serious matter! The misrepresentation of data is a form of scientific misconduct in the academic world, and this can have dire consequences!
Related articles:
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/csicops-dave-thomas-thermodynamic-size.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2013/09/dave-thomas-pulls-iron-spheres-out-of.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/matching-peaks-part-2-dave-thomas.html
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/mohr-misunderstanding-rj-lee-did-not.html
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Debunking JREF´s Myriad and the Ferrihydrite Hypothesis for Iron Spheres
The JREF 9/11 forum is in a bit of a crisis these days, as the old excuses for the iron spheres found in the WTC dust have become increasingly transparent and ineffective as the years have gone by. Myriad, one of the moderators of JREF´s 9/11 forum, put one such excuse on display on the 4th of October, 2010, in post #28 on the thread "iron rich spheres" - scientific explanation? Myriad´s "ferrihydrite hypothesis" states that (edited):
Upon closer inspection of the text, the problems start to pile up:
1) The "physical form" of ferrihydrite ash residue has not been "formally studied" so the phenomenon of spherically shaped ferromagnetic residue is not formally recognized: There is no evidence that wood-burning produces spheres of any iron-bearing compound. The scientific method would dictate looking for another explanation for any observed spheres in the ash - such as external contamination - but following such a standard would negate the purpose of the JREF 9/11 forum.
2) Since the spherical phenomenon does not appear to have been recognized and studied, the hypothetical formation process has obviously not been formally studied. Myriad does not and cannot offer any description of the hypothetical "condensation" process, making it an empty phrase, so the hypothesis is quite literally nonsense.
That is the end of Myriad´s hypothesis, but for the sake of argument, let´s continue the story:
Myriad´s hypothesis is supposed to scientifically explain the "iron rich" spheres that several researchers discovered in the WTC dust. The remarkable thing about these spheres, besides the sheer abundance, is the elemental iron content, which distinguishes them from the known spherical metal contaminants in urban environments: iron-oxide fly ash spheres.
3) Even if we pretend that Myriad´s mythical condensation process is real, does it create elemental iron spheres, according to its maker? Myriad gives the answer in post #35 as "generally no" - the only thing he can safely assume is that the ferrihydrite will transform into hematite.
The spheres would contain iron-oxide like fly ash spheres, not iron, so the hypothesis is a verbose waste of time. But again, let´s continue for the sake of argument:
4) Myriad does offer the preposterous speculation in post # 28 that "the hot reducing environment of the flame" could reduce iron-oxide. The flame burns/oxidizes materials, but the reduction agent in carbon reduction is the carbon monoxide gas (black smoke) from an oxygen starved smoldering fire. Myriad does recognize this fact in post #35 and suggests a structural fire would be likely to produce the environment for reduction to elemental iron. The problem is that Myriad omits the fact that carbon-monoxide gas is only half the requirement, even though one of his colleagues noted the other requirement for reduction to elemental iron on the forum; the other condition is a temperature of about 1250C, which is about 200C above the maximum obtainable in a building fire, and about double the temperature of an oxygen starved building fire.
And that really is the end of Myriad´s ferrihydrite hypothesis, which is a unique display of verbose circular reasoning where all of the premises and the conclusion are false. But Myriad´s story continues, so let´s take a peek for the sake of amusement. Again, post #28:
"... Wood, like all plant tissue, contains ferritins, iron-bearing protein complexes...It is also well established that wood fires leave behind ferromagnetic traces...The steps in between, addressing the questions of the physical and chemical forms of the ferromagnetic residues and how they form in wood fires, do not appear to have been formally studied. I hypothesize that the ferrihydrate in wood, liberated when the proteins burn, condenses exothermically into iron-rich droplets in the hot reducing environment of the flame...The process is the condensation of already separate iron macromolecules into larger droplets."Myriad found some "iron-rich droplets" in the wood-ash, and assumes that the fire created them, despite the long standing forum consensus, even on the same thread, that iron-rich spheres are pervasive contaminants in our environment. He assumes that the iron source is the ferrihydrite from protein-complexes in the wood, which naturally occurs in spherical shapes on the nano-scale. According to Myriad´s hypothesis, the fire reduces the ferrihydrite and simultaneously "condenses" it into larger droplets - no melting required.
Upon closer inspection of the text, the problems start to pile up:
1) The "physical form" of ferrihydrite ash residue has not been "formally studied" so the phenomenon of spherically shaped ferromagnetic residue is not formally recognized: There is no evidence that wood-burning produces spheres of any iron-bearing compound. The scientific method would dictate looking for another explanation for any observed spheres in the ash - such as external contamination - but following such a standard would negate the purpose of the JREF 9/11 forum.
2) Since the spherical phenomenon does not appear to have been recognized and studied, the hypothetical formation process has obviously not been formally studied. Myriad does not and cannot offer any description of the hypothetical "condensation" process, making it an empty phrase, so the hypothesis is quite literally nonsense.
That is the end of Myriad´s hypothesis, but for the sake of argument, let´s continue the story:
Myriad´s hypothesis is supposed to scientifically explain the "iron rich" spheres that several researchers discovered in the WTC dust. The remarkable thing about these spheres, besides the sheer abundance, is the elemental iron content, which distinguishes them from the known spherical metal contaminants in urban environments: iron-oxide fly ash spheres.
3) Even if we pretend that Myriad´s mythical condensation process is real, does it create elemental iron spheres, according to its maker? Myriad gives the answer in post #35 as "generally no" - the only thing he can safely assume is that the ferrihydrite will transform into hematite.
The spheres would contain iron-oxide like fly ash spheres, not iron, so the hypothesis is a verbose waste of time. But again, let´s continue for the sake of argument:
4) Myriad does offer the preposterous speculation in post # 28 that "the hot reducing environment of the flame" could reduce iron-oxide. The flame burns/oxidizes materials, but the reduction agent in carbon reduction is the carbon monoxide gas (black smoke) from an oxygen starved smoldering fire. Myriad does recognize this fact in post #35 and suggests a structural fire would be likely to produce the environment for reduction to elemental iron. The problem is that Myriad omits the fact that carbon-monoxide gas is only half the requirement, even though one of his colleagues noted the other requirement for reduction to elemental iron on the forum; the other condition is a temperature of about 1250C, which is about 200C above the maximum obtainable in a building fire, and about double the temperature of an oxygen starved building fire.
And that really is the end of Myriad´s ferrihydrite hypothesis, which is a unique display of verbose circular reasoning where all of the premises and the conclusion are false. But Myriad´s story continues, so let´s take a peek for the sake of amusement. Again, post #28:
"[The ferrihydrite hypothesis ] would also explain where the iron-rich microspheres in coal ash (fly ash) come from. (And I believe some explanation of that is needed, since unburned coal does not contain iron spheres and coal is not burned at temperatures at or above the melting point of bulk iron.)"
The US Geological Survey confirms that coals primarily have iron sulfides and oxides, so the ferrihydrite premise is invalid. And although some furnaces may burn at temperatures below the MP of iron, those that produce fly ash spheres with melted iron-oxides do so at temperatures at or above the MP, typically in the 1400C to 1800C range - see here, here and here. And of course, fly ash spheres are not rich in iron, but they can be rich in iron-oxides.
Myriad, on April 1, 2014, repeats the ferrihydrite hypothesis: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9929682&postcount=6
His forum friend, Chris Mohr, debunks it the same day: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9930491&postcount=10 ...but no response from Myriad.
It can be sad and amusing to observe how far certain people will go to defend a strongly held belief, which in this case is the belief that one should expect to see iron spheres formed in a fire. It will be interesting to see if the JREF forum will treasure the ferrihydrite fallacy for another four years.
Myriad, on April 1, 2014, repeats the ferrihydrite hypothesis: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9929682&postcount=6
His forum friend, Chris Mohr, debunks it the same day: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9930491&postcount=10 ...but no response from Myriad.
It can be sad and amusing to observe how far certain people will go to defend a strongly held belief, which in this case is the belief that one should expect to see iron spheres formed in a fire. It will be interesting to see if the JREF forum will treasure the ferrihydrite fallacy for another four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)