Re: FAQ per i novellini (per non confonderli o scoraggiarli)
Inviato da Dr-Jackal il 7/10/2010 17:25:31
Forse sei tu che devi leggerla, quella discussione. Oltre le prime dieci righe, intendo. Prova a leggere anche le risposte dei non-debunkers.
Quel Dr. Greening, non fa che trattare arrogantemente i "complottisti", come al solito (rivelandosi come il debunker dogmatico che č), e avanzare alcune obiezioni tecniche che a quanto pare fraintende completamente, oltre ad ignorare bellamente tutto ciņ che lo smentisce.
Se leggi le risposte di Steven Jones e Frank Legge infatti scopri che:
"The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.
Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores: the formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition, Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.
The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.
Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law."
Steven Jones.
(Quindi questo tizio ha il vizio di fraintendere principi fisici, oltre che di ignorarli quando gli fa comodo.)
E ancora:
Frank Greening, again your logic is off the beam. Jones is not suggesting that the production of iron rich spheres is a measure of a rapid reaction. Can you not see that the production of iron rich spheres is proof of temperatures far too high to result from the combustion of organics, and therefore proof of another chemical reaction? How many chemical reactions would be possible given the known starting materials and products, and given that one of the products is molten iron? I can only think of the thermite reaction. Can you please list your alternatives?
Even if the Analysis does not show unequivocally that iron has been reduced and aluminium oxidized (which I think it does), does not the production of a ball of iron not prove the thermite reaction by itself?
Frank Legge.
E ogni volta che questo Greening prova a obiettare qualcos'altro viene puntualmente sputtanato da Jones o Legge. Senza contare che continua a ignorare tutto quello che lo smentisce.
Cosa avrebbe provato, quindi?
Ottimo lavoro, lucred. Sei riuscito a dimostrare che non leggi ciņ che non ti conviene. Un perfetto debunkeretto con la sua brava vista selettiva.
(E comunque questa non č una discussione sulla nano-thermite. Apri un thread apposito se proprio ci tieni.)
Quel Dr. Greening, non fa che trattare arrogantemente i "complottisti", come al solito (rivelandosi come il debunker dogmatico che č), e avanzare alcune obiezioni tecniche che a quanto pare fraintende completamente, oltre ad ignorare bellamente tutto ciņ che lo smentisce.
Se leggi le risposte di Steven Jones e Frank Legge infatti scopri che:
"The iron-oxide grains are approximately 100 nm across, which fits the requirement for nano-thermite as defined in the literature, despite Greening's obfuscation of this point.
Now this is the point that is critical to the fact of a rapid reaction, which the paper emphasizes and James re-iterates and Frank Greening ignores: the formation of iron-rich spheres of micron+ sizes DURING the ignition, Shown in Figs 20 and 21 AND 25.
The formation of these iron-rich spheres implies extremely high temperatures and is more important, IMO, than the narrowness of the DSC trace. We carefully examined the red/gray chips in each case BEFORE ignition and there were NO spheres of micron+ sizes in the pre-ignition samples.
Yet Greening ignores these data -- let's see if he will now address them, correctly, and not as he misunderstood Newton's Third Law."
Steven Jones.
(Quindi questo tizio ha il vizio di fraintendere principi fisici, oltre che di ignorarli quando gli fa comodo.)
E ancora:
Frank Greening, again your logic is off the beam. Jones is not suggesting that the production of iron rich spheres is a measure of a rapid reaction. Can you not see that the production of iron rich spheres is proof of temperatures far too high to result from the combustion of organics, and therefore proof of another chemical reaction? How many chemical reactions would be possible given the known starting materials and products, and given that one of the products is molten iron? I can only think of the thermite reaction. Can you please list your alternatives?
Even if the Analysis does not show unequivocally that iron has been reduced and aluminium oxidized (which I think it does), does not the production of a ball of iron not prove the thermite reaction by itself?
Frank Legge.
E ogni volta che questo Greening prova a obiettare qualcos'altro viene puntualmente sputtanato da Jones o Legge. Senza contare che continua a ignorare tutto quello che lo smentisce.
Cosa avrebbe provato, quindi?
Ottimo lavoro, lucred. Sei riuscito a dimostrare che non leggi ciņ che non ti conviene. Un perfetto debunkeretto con la sua brava vista selettiva.
(E comunque questa non č una discussione sulla nano-thermite. Apri un thread apposito se proprio ci tieni.)
Messaggio orinale: https://old.luogocomune.net/site/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=7&topic_id=5937&post_id=177411