Apparently, Mr. Thomas has read part two of our article, including the concise debunking of his steel wool youtube video which was supposed to debunk Dr. Harrit´s claim that only the ignition of thermite leaves behind molten iron-rich spheres. We had to point out to Mr. Thomas that he made many gross experimental errors, and that he failed to yield iron-rich spheres. No wonder he never tried to publish the data in a journal.
Mr. Thomas has posted another youtube video and again he claims to have gotten iron spheres via conventional combustion. And again he has invalid data that he cannot even dream about getting published - and he knows it, as can be gleaned from the comment-section by the video. Let´s start with his claim of having countered the announcement in the second part of our article 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 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."As we shall see, Mr. Thomas has no idea where from those spheres came, and cannot even establish whether or not the fire actually formed any new spheres at all. 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: 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 claimBy 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: ..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 led-chro 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
Mr. Thomas most likely either made those spheres himself while he cut those beams via the friction from a cutting wheel, or he may have carbon-reduced oxidized spheres that were already in the barrel before he lit the fire. He has no evidence to suggest that his 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 about it in yet another youtube video?