Tomten wrote:
Du är som att tala till en jävla vägg. Förresten, har du tagit alla dina dina influensa vacciner, dom är jätte nyttiga för debunkers.

Tomten wrote:
Man kan ju naturligtvis söka på internet rörande Thimerosal men en Zink kommer naturligtvis dyka upp och påstå att det är nyttigt.

zpz2 wrote:
Oavsett om man spekulerar i thermate med eller utan barium så visar inte en förekomst av svavel att thermate har använts.
Det finns alltså inget i detta att debunka.

Quote:

An equivalent piece of reasoning would be:

Rotten eggs give off hydrogen sulfide, which contains sulfur.
Samples from the WTC contain sulfur.
Therefore, the WTC was demolished by being pelted with rotten eggs.

"Skeptiker" my ass!!

Tomten wrote:
Välkommen, om du inte har sett en del av 9/11 filmerna så finns de här:

http://www.nw0.info/?p=Documentaries/

Still no peer-review of Jones' stunning research.

Tomten wrote:
Quote:

Still no peer-review of Jones' stunning research.

Tre oberoende lab utförde samma analys, fast man kan ju helt enkelt bara påstå att det inte finns någon "peer-review", precis som man kan påstå att Saddam hade WND och jobbade med Usama bin Laden eller att flygfotogen smälter stål eller att det inte fanns flytande stål under WTC 1 och WTC 2 fem veckor efteråt.

"And also, could they have been formed after 9/11. Oxyacetylene torches melt steel, and there were hundreds of the things in operation in the days following 9/11."

Tomten wrote:


2 kg stål är inte samma sak som 11 tusen ton stål eller 400 ton per balk.

Tomten wrote:
Men den officiella historien säger att bränder ifrån flygfotogen rev huset, inte några hobby verktyg man matar med ren syrgas.

"Not that there was much credibility to start with, but the horrible method in which the scientific samples were obtained, as well as the delay, the likely lack of proper procedure, etc, makes the risk of contamination very high, and hence the samples used, from a scientific evidence point of view...useless."

We had a discussion on this earlier. Cleanup is one potential source of the spherules. Another is that they're left over from construction.

There are other processes in fires that seem to produce spherules at much lower than melting temperatures. I'll go look for that paper.

It's also possible that much higher temperatures existed at localized places due to other phenomenology, such as the friction of collapse, and (my preferred speculative theory) abrasive fluid action at impact.

What we really need is an estimate of just how many spherules there are. If it's a tiny amount, the above mechanisms are completely credible. But if we're talking hundreds of tons, then there's something more interesting going on. So far I've found no quantification at all.

What's critical for me is that, besides the spherules, there is no sign whatsoever of melting temperatures -- no partially melted members, no puddles of iron slag, etc. This suggests to me that whatever created the spherules was either colder, or very small in effect.

ETA: See here for a more credible study of the spherules. I still don't understand the mechanism, but it appears to be normal.