[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

[alienentity]

Do you know what the word "nano" means? Really means?

Doesn't 'nano' mean 'magic'?

[leftysergeant]

Is there any information on the grey material ? Does it have nano-properties ?

Did you even look at the picture of the paint peeling off the steel?

It appears you didn't.

Does it not strike you as odd that Thermite Boy does not mention finding paint chips and identifying them as such in his dust samples?

The boy knows as much about paint as he does about crucifiction.

[BCR]

nano definition - super duper thermite

[terl]

Come on truthers - comment on this comparison.

I am neither a truther nor a scientist or engineer. But, the picture on the left looks like a slice of ham and the pictures on the right look like chunks of beef. What does it mean?

[bill smith]

Do you know what the word "nano" means? Really means?

One billionth of a meter or 100,000 times thinner than a hair off the top of your head. Properties can change at this level. Less inside- more outside. More surface area. nd all that good stuff.

[Galileo]

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Submitted by ProfJones on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:07pm.

Since the days of Sir Isaac Newton, Science has proceeded through the publication of peer-reviewed papers. Peer-review means a thorough reading, commentary and even challenge before publication by "peers", that is, other PhD's and professors. This paper was thoroughly peer-reviewed with several pages of tough comments that required of our team MONTHS of additional experiments and studies. It was the toughest peer-review I've ever had, including THREE papers for which I was first author in NATURE.

(Please note that Prof. Harrit is first author on this paper.) We sought an established journal that would allow us a LONG paper (this paper is 25 pages long) with MANY COLOR IMAGES AND GRAPHS. Such a scientific journal is not easy to find. Page charges are common for scientific journals these days, and are typically paid by the University of the first or second author (as is the case with this paper) or by an external grant.

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper (based on commentary we received from the reviewers). In the end, all the reviewers -- who were selected by the editor(s) -- approved publication. Thus, the paper was subjected to peer review by the editor or editors, and it passed the peer-review process.

READ THE REST, DEBUNKERS, YOU HAVE BEEN OUTWITTED BY DR. JONES!

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19780

This is the science organization that published the paper. They are obviously legitimate, they publish papers by Nobel laureates:

http://www.bentham.org/index.htm

[Sunstealer]

Thank You for actually reading the paper. I was alittle upset when I saw people yacking about how its just paint chips...clear indication they didn't read it.I've skim read the paper (as you do in order to get a general gist). It's quite heavy with data. I've then read the pages 1-18. I've then analysed the data on pages 1-18 and looked closely at how that data is interpreted in the paper. I've then noticed due to my experience that there are some parts of the SEM photos that are of interest

(that means, "Oi! SEM driver [person operating it], look at that bit will you, zoom in a bit, what's that?" - and then you find it's quarter to 6 in the evening and you've spent the last 8 hrs in a darkened room without a lunch break!)

and that I think I recognise some of the platelet shapes. So I look at the corresponding EDS spectra and I get an idea of what they could be. I started from there.

Where do other people start from? How are they actually analysing the data in the paper? Are they just looking at the conclusions and accepting it? I would be genuinely interested to get some peoples reactions, for example to, Figure 4. Explain in your own words what you actually see. Doesn't matter how you do it but do your own analysis, what do you see?

[leftysergeant]

I am neither a truther nor a scientist or engineer. But, the picture on the left looks like a slice of ham and the pictures on the right look like chunks of beef. What does it mean?
It means that Jones' thermite chips are indistinguishable from paint chips, right down to the inclusion of bits of iron imbedded in the chips. The spectral analysis shows exactlythe same components that would be present in paint contaminated with calcium sulphate reside (from pulverised drywall.)

[JamesB]

You know who we are forgetting here? Karl Schwarz, one of the world's leading experts on nanotechnology.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-on-moron-karl-schwarz.html

Surely Karl would know. :D

[leftysergeant]

A peer-reviewed journal is also called a "refereed" journal. Peer-reviewers are almost always anonymous for scientific publications like this -- that is standard in the scientific world. While authors commonly recommend potential peer-reviewers, editors choose the referees and usually pick at least one or two reviewers that the authors did NOT mention -- and that is almost certainly the case with this paper

Name them or stop blathering about their qualifications.

This is the science organization that published the paper. They are obviously legitimate, they publish papers by Nobel laureates:

http://www.bentham.org/index.htm

So has Playboy. Do you have a point?

[JSSTyger]

Still waiting on the day JREF'ers start nitpicking NIST, FEMA, 911 Commission, etc. Skeptics? Nah. Sheep? Yeah. I only need to ask a few questions to prove my point

1) How do you feel about NIST not releasing their model data?
2) What is the reasoning for NIST changing their response on their Q&A as to whether or not portions of WTC 7 entered free fall? For any competent physicist or engineer, this would have been one of the first things noticed and it would have been noted immediately. There really is no acceptable answer to this question. I'm just asking you to think about it.

I can't stand when you guys crack on the work of a few individuals about minute details such as "military grade thermite has barium nitrate" or "hes the guy who got fired from BYU...he must be a moron" but you can't see the obvious flaws in your own engineering reports.

What you SHOULD be doing is acknowledging that Jones et. al. have a SOLID report. The data IS REPEATABLE. Every part of the analysis is in plain view. The researchers ARE REPUTABLE. They found evidence of pyrotechnic material, as indicated by their thermal testing. The report was delayed by months because they wanted to make sure all questions could be answered. Its a ***** legitimate report you morons. Thats how you are supposed to do it. Now go critique the NIST report now that you have an idea how real scientific reports are written-how conclusions and data are supposed to be linked.

[Galileo]

Name them or stop blathering about their qualifications.



So has Playboy. Do you have a point?

You think Playboy is a peer reviewed science journal?

[Sunstealer]

Is there any information on the grey material ? Does it have nano-properties ?Grrrr - you see this is exactly what I'm on about with truther numpties. Is there any data on the gray material? Yes, there is. There's bloody heaps of data in Jones' paper! What are you doing man? Read the paper, it gives a good inclination as to what the "gray layer" is and stop with the "nano malarky". Infact, if you just looked at the picture comparison you could gain a good idea as to why there is massive conjecture.

I've suggested MIO (and if you'd bothered to have read the thread from the start you'd know why). Having seen the above paint photo courtesy of other people and then compared the two photos from the paper and NIST then there is massive correlation between the two.

The "gray layer" looks like MIO under the SEM - same shapes, size, morphology and characteristics. The "black layer" between the primer and the steel in the NIST report (Fig D-4) as well as some of the brighter metallic particles adhered to the red paint look like a good candidate for Jones' "gray layer". Anyone with half a brain would think, "hang on a minute, those things look awfully similar, lets investigate", but no, they dribble on.

[Sparky]

One billionth of a meter or 100,000 times thinner than a hair off the top of your head. Properties can change at this level. Less inside- more outside. More surface area. nd all that good stuff.

Excellent! Now, if you can, tell me how thermite's properties change at the nanometer level.

[bill smith]

Did you even look at the picture of the paint peeling off the steel?

It appears you didn't.

Does it not strike you as odd that Thermite Boy does not mention finding paint chips and identifying them as such in his dust samples?

The boy knows as much about paint as he does about crucifiction.

'crucifiction'.....were you making a point or is this a misspelling ?

[Sunstealer]

I am neither a truther nor a scientist or engineer. But, the picture on the left looks like a slice of ham and the pictures on the right look like chunks of beef. What does it mean?You're either telling porkies or you have a beef with something. Either of those or your an over worked butcher.

[bill smith]

Excellent! Now, if you can, tell me how thermite's properties change at the nanometer level.

Well as far as I know the electrons become more constricted and move faster making it more energetic. The surface area increases relatively and the particle size becomes tiny beyond belief,Small enough to enter human cells. So if it was painted on for instance it would have a lot more coverage. Less would do more. In the case of nano-thermite you would get a lot more bang for your buck so to speak.

[leftysergeant]

You think Playboy is a peer reviewed science journal?

My point is that Bentham is no more reputable for having published the works of Nobel laureates if they still do not obey the standards of a peer reviewed journal.

[boloboffin]

The data IS REPEATABLE.

So is three-card monte.

[alienentity]

Blah blah blah..


2) What is the reasoning for NIST changing their response on their Q&A as to whether or not portions of WTC 7 entered free fall? For any competent physicist or engineer, this would have been one of the first things noticed and it would have been noted immediately. There really is no acceptable answer to this question. I'm just asking you to think about it.



I'll make you a deal. I'll answer question 2 on two conditions:

1) You answer my questions first. Just scroll up and you'll find them. I asked you first, remember?
2) You retract the phrase 'there really is no acceptable answer' because it would indicate that you will not accept the answer to a question that you've just asked. I don't think that's honest or honorable. But I'll give you a chance to step up if you dare.

If you really feel there is no acceptable answer, sincerely, then why bother asking a question? It really makes me wonder whether there is any acceptable criticism of Jones' paper allowed in your world....

Follow steps 1 and 2 please, and I'll be happy to respond. Be careful what you ask for.

[Sparky]

Well as far as I know the electrons become more constricted and move faster making it more energetic. The surface area increases and the particle size becomes tiny beyond belief,Small enough to enter human cells. So if it was painted on for instance it would have a lot more coverage. Less would do more. In the case of nano-thermite you would get a lot more bang for your buck so to speak.

Last question. How much more bang? Please show proof.

[alienentity]

Here's my questions again for you JSSTyger:

1)So if one reads the paper and still concludes that they're paint chips, what is your excuse going to be?

2)Are you saying that there's no such thing as a legitimate criticism of the paper?
Did God write it then? (you don't have to answer that one)

3)And further, does this paper settle the issue definitively, and if so, how? Is it even necessary for the thermite paint hypothesis to be tested on structural steel or should the idea be accepted as fact first?

thanks in advance for your answers and I will give you my response to your question 2 as promised. Looking forward to it.

[bill smith]

Last question. How much more bang? Please show proof.

Probably several orders of mag. I can't prove it. Kevin Ryan can.

[dtugg]

Probably several orders of mag. I can't prove it. Kevin Ryan can.

Do you even know what an order of magnitude is? No probably not.

And let's see Waterboy's "proof."

[RedIbis]

I looked a few pages back and haven't seen this posted yet. If I missed it, I apologize.

Here is Dr. Jones' most recent blog posting. I do believe he is reading this forum closely, as he addresses many of the objections that have been posted thus far.

I especially appreciate his description of the peer review, as well as what specifically must be done to make legitimate objections to the paper's findings.

http://911blogger.com/node/19780#comment

[Pardalis]

I wonder why he just doesn't join in here. ( a moderated thread would be nice)

[dtugg]

Hey Jonesy, since you are apparently reading this, why don't you prove that your super duper mega nano them*te can do what you claim?

[RedIbis]

I wonder why he just doesn't join in here. ( a moderated thread would be nice)

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here.

It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense, and gave a long leash and predominance to some very uncivil posters.

Unfortunately, when some rather solid science enters the picture, jref will not be able to host such an important discussion. Again, I think this is unfortunate because I like this forum, and there are many interesting and talented people who post in the other topics.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Sorry if this has already been posted.


Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438

IN Table D-1 you find the composition of primer used at the world trade center:

main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.

A proprietary composition makes it difficult to see but not impossible as the ingredients for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer is:

Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates


I thought this was worth passing on as it seemed it could be of importance.

[Sunstealer]

hey sunstealer,

below is Jones's response to your position.



whats your counter? (and if you already posted one i apologise for reguratating old arguments)

peaceSorry TWS, the thread has moved on - I initially responded to this question in post #666 (:)) but a couple of other things have been troubling me.

Firstly, the platelets with predominately Si/Al and O are of a crystalline form, they look roughly hexagonal in plane view (and I think they are Kaolin of some form). I don't know how to account for this regular structure if it incorporates elemental Al? If elemental Al is removed then we will see a degredation of these plate like structures.

Secondly if the MEK and agitation "disturbs" elemental Al from these platelets (rather than elsewhere, which is a possibility) and forms enough concentrated elemental Al to be analysed by EDS, then I would expect to see SEM photographs of the remnants of these platelets that the claimed elemental Aluminium is from aswell as the "freed" elemental Al. Surely we would see a degradation or surface change in these platelets under SEM analysis. There isn't anything in the paper that shows this. Infact there are no, post MEK treatment, SEM photos at all.

There should either be a break up or transformation of these platelets as the Al is removed from them which will be easily identified by the SEM. I'd like to see several SEM photos from chips post immersion to MEK concentrating upon platelets.

I would also like to point out that there is only so much a report can provide in the way of data and that it's reasonable to expect a reduction in the number of photos and graphs. If I was looking to produce this report then I'd probably have broken it into two or three parts, firstly the SEM analysis, secondly the DSC analysis and thirdly the conclusion. (I'm sure there are loads of people who disagree, but there you go).

There is loads of data (and analysis to get through) and it throws up many questions. Some of them I can answer myself, others are answered by other people here (and elsewhere) and some will remain un-answered.

It's not an easy task, because I don't have a background with DSC experience, although I'm broadly familiar with the technique. I am not going to comment or wax lyrical upon something I have no experience with (unlike others whom I could mention), because I've seen the BS fly and watched people caught out by it. Incidentally those persons were not the engineers, but management types. If I don't know, I'll say so.

Sorry to inject some science and analysis in amongst the drivel, bickering and conjecture, but there you go. :) I'm sort of using this thread as an online, metallurgical investigation in chronological time, so that I can go back and piece together the important bits. I suppose I should go away for a month and then come back with a critique (good or bad, dismissive or supportive) of the paper, but it's been posted here and it's useful to see the constructive posts (as opposed to the dross), which widen my knowledge and give additional information for which I'm pleased to have a look at.

[RedIbis]

Sorry to inject some science and analysis in amongst the drivel, bickering and conjecture, but there you go. :) I'm sort of using this thread as an online, metallurgical investigation in chronological time, so that I can go back and piece together the important bits. I suppose I should go away for a month and then come back with a critique (good or bad, dismissive or supportive) of the paper, but it's been posted here and it's useful to see the constructive posts (as opposed to the dross), which widen my knowledge and give additional information for which I'm pleased to have a look at.

Don't apologize, your thorough analyses and civil tone are both refreshing and persuasive. Yours is exactly how questioning of a scientific report should go.

[T.A.M.]

Why is it truthers have such a short memory.

Well here Galelio, and professor Jones, if you are reading, is an entire thread,

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489

Dedicated to the first "peer reviewed" article, published by the same sham, vanity journal...

The investigation begins around post #89...

posts 128,154,163,186,188,192,282,290,291,297,311,314,32 8,

are some good posts to get you started.

Bentham is a bogus, sham, vanity journal. EOS.

TAM:)

[BCR]

I looked a few pages back and haven't seen this posted yet. If I missed it, I apologize.

Here is Dr. Jones' most recent blog posting. I do believe he is reading this forum closely, as he addresses many of the objections that have been posted thus far.

I especially appreciate his description of the peer review, as well as what specifically must be done to make legitimate objections to the paper's findings.

http://911blogger.com/node/19780#comment

Yes, he makes an interesting point...

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. "

Sorry, I don't have 800 bucks to spend on a "pay to play" journal. However, that does not excuse the fact that Dr. Jones did NOT present enough control samples in his work. Until someone comes up with a control sample of thermite spectra that I requested 20 pages ago, then I have to go with the paint chips hypothesis and charge that Dr. Jones did not follow scientific protocol. Perhaps that is why he had to go "pay to play" and was unable to get a reputable scientific journal to run it.

[Crungy]

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here.

It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense, and gave a long leash and predominance to some very uncivil posters.

Unfortunately, when some rather solid science enters the picture, jref will not be able to host such an important discussion. Again, I think this is unfortunate because I like this forum, and there are many interesting and talented people who post in the other topics.

This has to be the most ironic post ever written at JREF. Amazing words for someone who has shown nothing but extreme contempt for science and scientists, except those that are 5 cans short of a six pack.

[ozeco41]

Last question. How much more bang? Please show proof.

Same total amount of bang - it just happens quicker.

So more effect over a short time frame. (there may be slight "second order" differences - nothing to produce order of magnitude higher effectiveness)

Whilst the chemistry/physics technical discussion may be of interest there is simply no way that any of this sort of material made any significant contribution to the actual collapses.

The only place it may have been "needed" to cause demolition was in precipitating the "Initial Collapse" which started the "Top Block" on its downwards trip.

And, even in that narrow window of opportunity for the demolition fantasists, you can eliminate it by looking at what happened - there was no way the material could be in place before aircraft impact, AND remain in place on the structural members which failed to cause the collapses; - no way other than fire suited suicide workers to put it in place after impact, working in the hottest part of the fires; - and it wasn't needed anyway if you work through the "collapse cascade mechanism", once started that "initial collapse cascade" was positive feedback self perpetuating; AND - from that point global collapse was inevitable.

So discuss and rave on about thermite all we want - BUT drop the pretense that it had anything to do with a demolition assisted collapse. It didn't.

[dtugg]

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here.

That's because all of these jokers are proven frauds.


It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense, and gave a long leash and predominance to some very uncivil posters.

That's because every "alternate hypotheses" proposed by the twoof movement is woo woo conspiracy nonsense. If they had any proof, it wouldn't be regarded as such. As far as incivility goes, I don't think that people who make up fantasies based on nothing which apologize for confessed terrorists while accusing innocent people for those acts deserve to be treated civilly.


Unfortunately, when some rather solid science enters the picture, jref will not be able to host such an important discussion. Again, I think this is unfortunate because I like this forum, and there are many interesting and talented people who post in the other topics.

What solid science?

Hey Red, can you think of any reasons they have never attempted to prove that super duper mega therm*te can do what they claim?

If I was Jones, I wouldn't come here either. Much easier to play it up to twoofers who will believe anything than have to answer direct questions from opponents.

[Sparky]

Probably several orders of mag. I can't prove it. Kevin Ryan can.

:jaw-dropp You have no idea, do you!

[A W Smith]

I looked a few pages back and haven't seen this posted yet. If I missed it, I apologize.

Here is Dr. Jones' most recent blog posting. I do believe he is reading this forum closely, as he addresses many of the objections that have been posted thus far.

I especially appreciate his description of the peer review, as well as what specifically must be done to make legitimate objections to the paper's findings.

http://911blogger.com/node/19780#comment

Hey Jonesie!
What happened to independent quantitative corroboration from back in 2007???
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1
Again, the evidence I have presented needs further, independent quantitative corroboration

Hey Jonesie!
What happened to these "independent results" from Dec 2007?
http://911blogger.com/node/13090
I've sent chips to yet another lab, yesterday.

Hey Jonesie!
Why did you avoid mainstream technical journals. to "explore other avenues"??
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
Given the reality of slow-publishing in mainstream scientific and engineering journals (granted this is important to do, to reach the scientific community better, for example), I/we are exploring other avenues -- open for suggestions.

Hey Jonesie!
Why did you not bother to test paint from the WTC?
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

[ozeco41]

This has to be the most ironic post ever written at JREF. Amazing words for someone who has shown nothing but extreme contempt for science and scientists, except those that are 5 cans short of a six pack.

Why not "... many sandwiches short of a picnic?"

... saves wasting good beer. :):D;)

[leftysergeant]

'crucifiction'.....were you making a point or is this a misspelling ?

It is an allusion to Jones' other opus magnus, "Behold My Hands," in which the suuperstitious little twit abuses iconography to prove that Jesus visited Yucatan after the Resurrection and became identified as the Mayan god Itzamna.

Dude has published page after page of laugh-out-loud FAIL. BMH is just the most obvious proof that he sucks at research.

[Sparky]

Same total amount of bang - it just happens quicker.



;)

[Sunstealer]

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here.

It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense, and gave a long leash and predominance to some very uncivil posters.

Unfortunately, when some rather solid science enters the picture, jref will not be able to host such an important discussion. Again, I think this is unfortunate because I like this forum, and there are many interesting and talented people who post in the other topics.Well I'm bloody well trying, but this thread has been hijacked and poisoned so frequently by truthers, which illicit a response from JREF members that it is impossible to maintain a thread let alone rationally discuss the paper. I've only seen Thewholesoul and Senenmut actually ask related questions which merit a response (apologies to others who have), only to be swamped with dross written and posted by other "truthers" (I do hate the division and labelling with regard to a technical thread) because they simply have to pile on into the latest discussion without thought. This thread should have been moderated from the start, however, as far as I'm aware the OP has to request that status and I would have if I thought it would a) descend into this and b) I knew how to. :o

I don't give a monkeys about my reputation, I'm only interested in what is put infront of me and what I'm qualified to examine. If I thought that the data showed thermite (of whatever form) was present, I'd be saying so, right here and right now. I have nothing to lose either way - and it's bedtime now.

[ozeco41]

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here. ... I agree that the ad hom free for all doesn't help much. And it would make discussion of the more complicated technical questions "very difficult". Even the simpler issue of why there was no demolition of WTC 1 & 2 would be hard to explain through the fog of ad hommery and accusation PLUS the red herrings. HOWEVER:It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense,....... I am the "newbie" here. Has anyone proposed an alternate hypothesis? I have previously never seen one that was a coherent alternative explanbation and answere to the central technical question "Demolition or Not?"

So links appreciated OR an outline of an alternate hypothesis.

[ozeco41]

Well I'm bloody well trying, but this thread has been hijacked and poisoned so frequently by truthers, which illicit a response from JREF members that it is impossible to maintain a thread let alone rationally discuss the paper. I've only seen Thewholesoul and Senenmut actually ask related questions which merit a response (apologies to others who have), .......
Apology accepted :):D;)

... though my "too hard for them questions" all have been pointed at "So what if there was thermxte - it wasn't used."

[UNLoVedRebel]

BTW, there also has been no PUBLISHED REFEREED paper yet that counters either the "Fourteen Points" paper or the "Environmental Anomalies" papers we published last year.

Oh Stevie. Try writing an article that actually has something of substance. Show us how your beloved thermite can cut a steel box column horizontally.

[ConspiracyKiller]

@Sunstealer

I was hoping you could comment on the Zinc found in the primer used at the world trade center. Dr. Greening seems to think the red/gray chips whatever they are don't seem to be paint because they lack the zinc.

I know your busy but the zinc issue is new to me and you seem the best qualified here to answer.

[Pardalis]

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here.

It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense, and gave a long leash and predominance to some very uncivil posters.

Unfortunately, when some rather solid science enters the picture, jref will not be able to host such an important discussion. Again, I think this is unfortunate because I like this forum, and there are many interesting and talented people who post in the other topics.

You have an obviously distorted view of the JREF forums, and what is "solid science". And from someone who systematically refuses, handwaves, dodges, and outright runs away from discussions, I find it quite hilarious.

The only reason a moderated thread couldn't work would be because Jones could not hold up his end honestly and eventually would call foul, and would end up leaving like a child.

Something tells me even you know that.

ETA: In fact, a moderated thread in this forum may be the only peer review he may ever see happen.

[AZCat]

What bothers me the most about the criticism of the article in this thread (and elsewhere) is the likely result. It's not like Jones, Ryan and the others are going to let go of their predetermined conclusions because of a little conflicting evidence. All they will do is alter their claims to avoid the more egregious mistakes they made here. We've seen this before (Gage's AE911Truth slide show, for example). It might be tempting to consider this an improvement, but all that will happen is more people will be fooled by arguments that appear to be sound, at least those who are not familiar with the subjects. It isn't science, though. Jones still hasn't answered several of the criticisms of his work that arose back in 2005 when he first announced his "discovery", nor does it seem likely that he ever will.

[alienentity]

I'd like to know how they eliminated paint chips in the dust samples, and what those paint chips looked like.

Has there been a thorough explanation of the composition of each sample (excluding the alleged thermite, I mean)?

Anyone know?

Also, I see JSSTyger has run away after I offered to take him up on his challenge. This is rather predictable, I'm afraid, from the truth movement.

I am happy to give Dr. Jones props for at least attempting to bring the process into the scientific realm, and he should get credit for that. This is at least a small step in the right direction, but it seems to me nowhere near a definitive moment in proving thermite.
It is definitive in bringing the issue to the table seriously where it can be picked at by trained observers, and perhaps corroborated.

But that has yet to happen. I'm sure the ensuing controversy will fuel another few months of books, DVD's and lectures for the good doctor and his colleagues, who will do very little or nothing to dispel the myth that they've now proved their case.

They haven't yet. Let's be fair and clear about it.

The question again is: if there were indeed paint chips in the dust samples, what did they look like and what was their composition? How does anyone know if these alleged thermite chips are not indeed WTC paint chips after all, since there don't appear to be any control samples with which to compare?

Bring on the science.

[Pardalis]

What bothers me the most about the criticism of the article in this thread (and elsewhere) is the likely result. It's not like Jones, Ryan and the others are going to let go of their predetermined conclusions because of a little conflicting evidence. All they will do is alter their claims to avoid the more egregious mistakes they made here. We've seen this before (Gage's AE911Truth slide show, for example). It might be tempting to consider this an improvement, but all that will happen is more people will be fooled by arguments that appear to be sound, at least those who are not familiar with the subjects. It isn't science, though. Jones still hasn't answered several of the criticisms of his work that arose back in 2005 when he first announced his "discovery", nor does it seem likely that he ever will.

Yes, good point, we only end up polishing their rhetoric. Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" in answer to Mackey's paper comes to mind.

[ConspiracyKiller]

I'd like to know how they eliminated paint chips in the dust samples, and what those paint chips looked like.

Has there been a thorough explanation of the composition of each sample (excluding the alleged thermite, I mean)?

Anyone know?

Also, I see JSSTyger has run away after I offered to take him up on his challenge. This is rather predictable, I'm afraid, from the truth movement.

I am happy to give Dr. Jones props for at least attempting to bring the process into the scientific realm, and he should get credit for that. This is at least a small step in the right direction, but it seems to me nowhere near a definitive moment in proving thermite.
It is definitive in bringing the issue to the table seriously where it can be picked at by trained observers, and perhaps corroborated.

But that has yet to happen. I'm sure the ensuing controversy will fuel another few months of books, DVD's and lectures for the good doctor and his colleagues, who will do very little or nothing to dispel the myth that they've now proved their case.

They haven't yet. Let's be fair and clear about it.

The question again is: if there were indeed paint chips in the dust samples, what did they look like and what was their composition? How does anyone know if these alleged thermite chips are not indeed WTC paint chips after all, since there don't appear to be any control samples with which to compare?

Bring on the science.

Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438

IN Table D-1 you find the composition of primer used at the world trade center:

main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.

the ingredients for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer is:

Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates

The Zinc that is found in the primer seems to be missing from these red/gray chips.

[T.A.M.]

Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was
acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting
spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks
for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur,
zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these
elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to
the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected
surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be
due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard
material in the buildings.


The Jones Paper, page 17 (and fig 14 on same page)

[ConspiracyKiller]

The Jones Paper, page 17

Yes, but the amount is so little compared to the significant amounts of zinc found in the primer that comparatively speaking the red/gray chips are missing the necessary zinc to be paint.

[T.A.M.]

How do you arrive at this?

All we know from the NIST details, is that "Zinc Yellow" is 20.3% of the pigment component. I have no idea how much of "Zinc Yellow" is actual Zinc, nor do I know what percentage of the entire primer is pigment versus vehicle.

Perhaps Zinc is only 10% of "Zinc Yellow" or perhaps the pigment is only 30% of the primer, and the "Vehicle" is 70%. I do not know, but perhaps someone here does.

TAM:)

[boloboffin]

Here's a question I have: Jones has been making several intimations that Brigham Young University is far more involved in the production of this paper than you might expect. He's said that there was an internal review of the paper so that their staff members could appear on it. He's said that the new physics head at BYU is now convinced by this paper that explosives were used in the towers. I've even picked up a hint that BYU helped pay to get this paper published.

Can we get some clarification on BYU's participation in this debacle?

[alienentity]

Yes, but the amount is so little compared to the significant amounts of zinc found in the primer that comparatively speaking the red/gray chips are missing the necessary zinc to be paint.

First you incorrectly stated that the Zinc was missing, now you say there's not enough of it.

Just accept you were wrong about it, and don't shut down the correction.

It is silly to dismiss the Zinc because you don't like it there.

[T.A.M.]

Well had Jones been a real scientist, and done his job properly, he would have acquired some samples of the paint used on the WTC beams, ran spectral analysis on them, and looked a the levels/presence of zinc, and then we could see the difference...but he did not.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

I looked a few pages back and haven't seen this posted yet. If I missed it, I apologize.

Here is Dr. Jones' most recent blog posting. I do believe he is reading this forum closely, as he addresses many of the objections that have been posted thus far.

I especially appreciate his description of the peer review, as well as what specifically must be done to make legitimate objections to the paper's findings.

http://911blogger.com/node/19780#comment

I appreciate the fact that this is a reasoned response, and that you're pointing out something that appears to be a calm, reasoned post. Unfortunately, Jones's post amounts to putting lipstick on a pig. There are multiple issues with what he's saying, and they mostly amount to him attributing a false air of legitimacy to what is ultimately a hoodwink of a process as well as a hoodwink of a paper.

First of all, the important thing to remember about peer review is that it is put in front of accepted researchers in order to ensure that disciplined process was followed. Not to make sure the conclusions are correct. Nothing about peer review guarantees accuracy. As I've pointed out before, the Scott Reuben anesthesiology research case (http://cherryhill.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/feds-subpoena-records-of-dr-scott-reuben-clinical-trial-fabricator.aspx?googleid=260606) has sadly made that all too clear. But anyway, refereeing is the start of the validation process, not the ultimate end result. What matters after publication is the reference to it by other independent works (as an example, look up the multiple studies demonstrating a clear lack of relation between vaccines and autism, as well as the Geier meta-analysis of them), the knowledge built upon it, and the demonstration of the knowledge's validity in the real world. Meeting the first two criteria means nothing in the absence of the third; while I'm certain that others conspiracy peddlers will attempt to build upon this work, just like it built upon the other jokes of papers including the microspheres paper, the fact remains that the mere aping of process brings the information no closer to real science than the cargo cultists of the Pacific brought in real airplanes. The research itself must be solid, valid, and demonstrable. And as Sunstealer has pointed out, it is not. Invalid research built on top of invalid research is a rickety structure, not sound science.

I'm actually a bit sorry that none of this was ever made clear back in 2006 when some posters, myself included when I started posting on the SLC forum, brought this up. Peer review is an attempt to maintain the quality of the publication, and an attempt to ensure that no glaring mistakes come through. Unfortunately, Bentham Open is not a valid, respectable source. It could be. It has the potential to be. But the journal damages it's credibility through the practices (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3662754#post3662754) that R.Mackey has highlighted (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3720078#post3720078) several times (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4584182#post4584182), and that Pipirr linked to (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/some-background-on-bentham-open-but.html). Open access journals in general are a great idea; the way Bentham is currently operating is destroying that. And Jones completely glosses over that in his attempted defense of his publication in Bentham open.

Furthermore, what does it say about the rigor of the peer review that a random internet poster (sorry, Sunstealer) has highlighted flaws and quite rigorously supported his critique? Sunstealer has done more than highlight mistakes, he's demonstrated that the conclusions are not supported by the evidence. He hasn't just claimed it, he's demonstrated it. That's a pretty severe critique; it both destroys the credibility of the work in question as well as the review practice of the journal it's published in.

But above and beyond refereeing, a work's final validity lays in whether it properly reflects reality or not. Again, multiple posters here have pointed out severe, fundamental flaws in the logic used to make the conclusions in the paper. The chip is an energetic, thermitic compound? When the characteristics Sunstealer pointed out contradict that but are definitive for another compound? And when the energetics are not correct for a thermite redox? No feathers and no bill usually mean no duck, and calling it a "super duck" doesn't get around that fact. The paper's conclusion is contradicted by its own data. How that passed refereeing I don't know, but the real issue lays beyond that in the fact that it's just plain wrong. Once again, Sunstealer has demonstrated that. Jones can gloss over this all he wants and make claims that only objections in peer reviewed journals matter. But ultimately, he's deliberately pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, because he himself has to know that his excuses aren't a defense of the validity of the paper. They're excuses of the process. And all the process in the world cannot save research from basic invalidity. If you want an over-the-top example of how bad process in the face of invalidity can get, look up Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) some time. If you want a less radical, more current one, look up the research attempting to prove homeopathy's efficacy; there are tons of references over in the Science, Math, & Tech subform (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5). Defense of process is empty in the absence of validity, and once again, the validity of the paper is destroyed by its terrible misinterpretation of its own data.

Ultimately, the validity of a work is dicated by its acceptance in the relevant fields. For all its lack of peer review, the fact remains that the NIST report is far more referenced and accepted - as its influence on building codes demonstrates - than anything Jones has written. That report has resulted not just in the change of building codes worldwide, but has stimulated research (the Purdue and U. of Edinburgh works are two outstanding examples), debate (reference the Arup counterproposal highlighting thermal expansion in the absence of SFRM dislodgement, as well as the real meat of Dr. Quintiere's critiques), and concrete, real world applications (the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Beijing was built with designs influenced by NIST's work). Jones work, on the other hand, has generated a lot of heat on out-of-the-way forums, a decent amount of spam (I continue to be amazed that a Surfer's magazine, of all places, was spammed with it), and much text on the internet, but no one outside of conspiracy addicts have rushed to embrace it. Which is demonstrated by his need to resort to vanity scientific publication in order to get his work out. If we want to argue a works ultimate validity, regardless of prper process used to generate it, then this work and others fail miserably. Jones's work in muon catalyzed fusion have met with greater acceptance. Which is why I believe he has to know the difference between sham and genuine process. It is possible to ape a process and end up with a less valid end result, and that's what's happening here. This is cargo cult science. The surface appearance of adherence to rigor is betrayed by the analysis of the data and the demonstration of its deviation from the conclusion forwarded. When a paper fails due to internal contradictions, it fails. All the papering over he does with discussion of process fails. It fails because the paper ultimately does not reflect reality.

The "chips" are composed of elements such as MIO, kaolin, and what can either be paint or some other sort of anticorrosion coating. He has failed to demonstrate that it's thermite. Again, as Sunstealer has demonstrated, his own data shows this. His blog posts to the contrary cannot save that paper from the weight of reality.

[alienentity]

Which leads back to the question, 'how are these 'thermite' chips different from WTC paint chips also found in the dust samples?

Anyone? As far as anyone knows, the Jones team 'thermite' chips ARE in fact WTC paint chips. That probability has not been eliminated.

Besides, what are the statistical odds of finding small chips of material very similar in composition to what would be expected from WTC paint, but which were NOT that paint, but some foreign substance which was added to a few places here and there.

Methinks not very probable.

[T.A.M.]

Look up ZInc Yellow, and guess what you find....

it is one of two forms of Zinc Chromate. Chromate...where have I heard that before....

Chromium....oh yah, that also showed up as a peak in the analysis of the red chips.

hmmmmmm

TAM:)

Edit:

Two formulations for Zinc Yellow:

(1) Zinc Potassium Chromate Hydrate
(2) Zinc Chromate Hydroxide

[ConspiracyKiller]

How do you arrive at this?

All we know from the NIST details, is that "Zinc Yellow" is 20.3% of the pigment component. I have no idea how much of "Zinc Yellow" is actual Zinc, nor do I know what percentage of the entire primer is pigment versus vehicle.

Perhaps Zinc is only 10% of "Zinc Yellow" or perhaps the pigment is only 30% of the primer, and the "Vehicle" is 70%. I do not know, but perhaps someone here does.

TAM:)


I agree and am looking to find out. Also don't forget Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer also has zinc so there are two sources of zinc in the primer.

#1 Zinc Yellow
#2 Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer also has zinc compounds with traces of cobalt

Each of these as I understand it are separate from each other so it appears there is a significant amount of zinc in the primer.

[alienentity]

A further problem with the discovery of these 'thermite' chips is that there were very few samples collected, representing a tiny, tiny fraction of all the materials ejected from the towers.

How likely is it that multiple examples of alleged 'unexploded' explosive coatings could miraculously turn up in these few samples? It doesn't add up. Compared to the vast amount of primer paint and other materials used in the towers, surely the volume of any alleged explosive agent would be far smaller and virtually nonexistent in random dust samples.

It doesn't add up.

[boloboffin]

Zinc Chromate - ZnCrO4

[Orphia Nay]

Secondly the fact that this material releases more energy than thermite proves it's NOT thermite!The total energy released is not going to change just because you use smaller particles. The energy is released quicker but there isn't greater energy released.

/sigh.

It must be homeopathic therm*te! :pigsfly


Yes, but the amount is so little compared to the significant amounts of zinc found in the primer that comparatively speaking the red/gray chips are missing the necessary zinc to be paint.

You're only looking at the primer. You're not including the vehicle, or the body of the paint.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/painttable.gif

[T.A.M.]

I agree and am looking to find out. Also don't forget Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer also has zinc so there are two sources of zinc in the primer.

#1 Zinc Yellow
#2 Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer also has zinc compounds with traces of cobalt

Each of these as I understand it are separate from each other so it appears there is a significant amount of zinc in the primer.

do not assume. Zinc may be a small component in each, and/or those elements within the larger composition may only be trace elements within. Assume nothing unless you have proof based on the details from the paint manufacturer.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

It must be homeopathic therm*te! :pigsfly




You're only looking at the primer. You're not including the vehicle, or the body of the paint.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w194/orphia/painttable.gif

exactly. As I said earlier, for all I know, the pigment may only be 5% of the total primer, the vehicle being 95%.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

People, stop. Please. Whether the red layer is paint or not is irrelevant. The important thing to take away from all this is that Jones is trying to classify the chip as something it's not, and that his dismissal of alternate possibilities is exceedingly inadequate. Whether the layer is paint, other types of coatings, or whatever is less important and besides that, not rigorously determined. What's important is that the analysis leading Jones to conclude "energetic thermitic material" or some such nonsense is poor. That, as I've said before, was demonstrated by Sunstealer. That's the important part, not haggling over the minute point of whether it ultimately is paint or something else.

[Sunstealer]

@Sunstealer

I was hoping you could comment on the Zinc found in the primer used at the world trade center. Dr. Greening seems to think the red/gray chips whatever they are don't seem to be paint because they lack the zinc.

I know your busy but the zinc issue is new to me and you seem the best qualified here to answer.I'm unaware of the specific reference with regard to Dr Greening or the paper/data he is referring to- if you can please give a link to the source of his comment and I'd be interested to have a look. Thanks.

As an aside, I'd point you to Fig 14, of the Jones paper and it's above paragraph stating:

Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.Zinc (Zn) is clearly present (most likely in the oxide form - ZnO).

We can only comment on what is provided and without a reference to what Dr Greening was specifically commentating on then I can't comment on any correlation.

I'm ever so intrigued by this paper and what it's provided. The gf is not happy, I'm lacking sleep and my work colleagues are laughing - not only to the fact that I'm looking a bit dazed in the mornings, but also at the conclusions drawn from the SEM and EDS data. Happy days!

[T.A.M.]

People, stop. Please. Whether the red layer is paint or not is irrelevant. The important thing to take away from all this is that Jones is trying to classify the chip as something it's not, and that his dismissal of alternate possibilities is exceedingly inadequate. Whether the layer is paint, other types of coatings, or whatever is less important and besides that, not rigorously determined. What's important is that the analysis leading Jones to conclude "energetic thermitic material" or some such nonsense is poor. That, as I've said before, was demonstrated by Sunstealer. That's the important part, not haggling over the minute point of whether it ultimately is paint or something else.

Here we disagree.

While you are correct, that the overhanging point is that this was piss poor science, and for that alone should be dismissed, it is important to show how likely this is to be paint, as it was (A) a common element within the towers, that should have been considered by Jones, and (B) a common component found in other samples of the WTC dust as shown by other independent analysis of the WTC dust, that seemingly is MISSING or NOT REPORTED by Jones et al in their "paper".

TAM:)

[ConspiracyKiller]

do not assume. Zinc may be a small component in each, and/or those elements within the larger composition may only be trace elements within. Assume nothing unless you have proof based on the details from the paint manufacturer.

TAM:)


Yes, Thank you

[T.A.M.]

I wanted to revisit this paragraph of Jones paper, concerning the Zinc, as it illustrates, as Elmondo has alluded to, the horribly unscientific approach Jones takes...


Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was
acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting
spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks
for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur,
zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these
elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to
the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected
surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be
due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard
material in the buildings.

From page 17 of the paper.

Note how Jones, almost with a wave of his arm, dismisses the Zinc and Chromium as likely from contamination.

He did not (A) suggest or propose any other possibilities, he did not (B) perform any studies with WASHED chips in order to rule in or out that the Zinc and Chromium were due to contamination.

TAM:)

[alienentity]

There are still further problems beyond the provenance of the samples, the lack of identification of WTC primer chips (which MUST exist) and so on:

Dr. Jones has hung his hat on the speed of the tower collapses being far too fast to be explained by the 'top down' model. He insists that the thermite was used to accelerate (for some yet unknown reason) a collapse which was already going to happen. In other words, contrary to what some truthers are offering, that the Super Duper Nanothermite paint need only be applied in a few dabs here and there from the 80th floor up or so - perfectly coinciding with the airplane impact zones..........

It would, according to Dr. Jones, need to be applied throughout the entire towers, possibly every 2nd or 3rd floor.

If Dr. Jones changes his mind and decides that the 'thermite' was only applied near the top of the towers, then it didn't make any real difference to the collapses anyway, since the impacts and fires were sufficient to do the job.

This theory of Jones cannot possibly find fertile ground in the real scientific community - it is inherently self-contradictory and implausible, as others have pointed out. Its circular reasoning is irrelevant to the actual events and reasons for collapse which are already abundant.

It can add nothing of real value, except to eventually falsify itself. The sooner the better IMHO.

[16.5]

Say, did Jones publish his "independent tests" yet that he was yammering on about a couple of years ago?

No?

Really?

Then I am going to stop putting up with this mutt, and start spamming the tubes with this frauds' lie about independent testing.

Publish the independent test results, Steve-o or STFU.

[ConspiracyKiller]

I'm unaware of the specific reference with regard to Dr Greening or the paper/data he is referring to- if you can please give a link to the source of his comment and I'd be interested to have a look. Thanks.

As an aside, I'd point you to Fig 14, of the Jones paper and it's above paragraph stating:

Zinc (Zn) is clearly present (most likely in the oxide form - ZnO).

We can only comment on what is provided and without a reference to what Dr Greening was specifically commentating on then I can't comment on any correlation.

I'm ever so intrigued by this paper and what it's provided. The gf is not happy, I'm lacking sleep and my work colleagues are laughing - not only to the fact that I'm looking a bit dazed in the mornings, but also at the conclusions drawn from the SEM and EDS data. Happy days!

Thank you for having a look I would be most grateful if some one could post the exact measurements as I cant seem to find them.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2622

[mark4mark]

It can add nothing of real value, except to eventually falsify itself. The sooner the better IMHO.

I agree. But how could a man with such credentials not know this? And, if it is intentional deceit, what possibly could be the motivation? Why would a man destroy his own reputation and credibility so completely and willingly and sink into the depths of pseudoscience, smiling at that?

[16.5]

When you get the full talk, you will see that I hypothesize that the red side of the chips represent ultrafine "super-thermite", which as explained in my first paper is explosive, producing a jet of molten iron. The microscopic image presented shows the ultrafine aluminum mixed with Fe2O3, but still with "clumps" on a microscopic scale. Thus, from spot to spot on a red chip, and from chip to chip, one expects to see variations in the ratios of Al and Fe.

Also, I should clarify that the reason I said the reason the gray side may be harder to analyze using EDS methods is that it might be a plastic, which one expects would have mostly light elements such as hydrogen and carbon. However, with further research on the gray side this week, I'm thinking the gray side is probably not a plastic.

I've sent chips to yet another lab, yesterday. Science is a human enterprise and often there is an element of competition and "proprietary information" involved. In this case however, I'm seeking for cooperation by sharing information and samples as we proceed, thus hoping to proceed more rapidly given the possibility of another false flag operation. We need answers quickly... on a scale of a few months, not years.

The announcement was calculated to encourage rapid research.

And two years later I still have not published the results from that independent lab.

And two years later I publish garbage that I guessed in 2007. Hey truthers, are you sure this mutt ain't disinfo?

What a fraud.

[Pardalis]

I agree. But how could a man with such credentials not know this? And, if it is intentional deceit, what possibly could be the motivation? Why would a man destroy his own reputation and credibility so completely and willingly and sink into the depths of pseudoscience, smiling at that?

He's been at it for quite some time, he's been destroying his credibility with such things as his research on cold fusion and Jesus visiting the Mayans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[Crungy]

He's been at it for quite some time, he's been destroying his credibility with such things as his research on cold fusion and Jesus visiting the Mayans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Er, make that 5 1/2 cans short of a six pack...

[T.A.M.]

The more I read of his paper, and the lack of investigation into other, MORE LIKELY possibilities for the red chips, the more I realize just how biased, and poor a scientist Jones is.

That is even without considering the "Jesus and the Mayans" bit...lol

TAM:)

[Crungy]

The more I read of his paper, and the lack of investigation into other, MORE LIKELY possibilities for the red chips, the more I realize just how biased, and poor a scientist Jones is.

That is even without considering the "Jesus and the Mayans" bit...lol

TAM:)

Jones is from the Red Ibis skool of science...

[ConspiracyKiller]

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

I found the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

[boloboffin]

Hey, by the way, is anyone else not seeing this thread anymore in the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum page? It's obviously still here at JREF, but I have been missing it in the lists of threads in this forums.

I'm posting this to alert mods about the situation.

[boloboffin]

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

I found the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

Zinc Compounds - 2.98% by weight

[beachnut]

It would be nice, but the jref well is so poisoned a civil, productive discussion between the leading scientists and leading debunkers will never happen here.

It might happen elsewhere, but not here. For some reason the established community decided that questioning 9/11 and proposing alternative hypotheses was woo woo conspiracy nonsense, and gave a long leash and predominance to some very uncivil posters.

Unfortunately, when some rather solid science enters the picture, jref will not be able to host such an important discussion. Again, I think this is unfortunate because I like this forum, and there are many interesting and talented people who post in the other topics.
You are not a skeptic; you are a gullible believer of lies produced by Dr Jones. He made up the thermite scenario and his latest smoking gun was used last year. Read his first paper and with but a first grade education bag of skills, you will with a little research and some logic see he has a failed delusion.

Please show us all your independent support evidence for Jones’ work. There is not any. Jones had to pay to get his paper published and when he appears on any legit news show he may be called nuts. His ideas are.

It is easy to debate you and Jones since you guys have no evidence on 911. And you will never show any in your posts.

Since you attempt to look for some science please explain why there is Calcium and Titanium in the paint chip Jones says is thermite. Did you study what some uses of thermite like coatings are used for? I have found the same kind of chips after fires; why?

Did Jones get the energy from this “thermite chip” without extra oxygen?

Why are 2 of the “chip samples” below the energy in thermite and two above and not all like the same as thermite?

Simple questions if you are interested at all in the science which Jones is not using.

[Lenbrazil]

A couple of unrelated points

1) A Truther claimed that Bentham published papers by Nobel Laureates but the only thing relevant on the cited page was:

"A major STM journal publisher of 92 online and print journals, 200 plus open access journals, and related print/online book series, Bentham Science answers the informational needs of the pharmaceutical, biomedical and medical research community.

Leading journals include Current Pharmaceutical Design (Impact Factor 4.868), Current Medicinal Chemistry (Impact Factor 4.944), the leading review journal in its field and endorsed by 7 Nobel Laureates. "

Yet another example of a truther having difficulty understanding even simple text. In any case not all of Benthams titles are "pay to play" and I'm not sure which group CMC belongs to.

2) Funny that Jones implies claims that don't appear in peer reviewed journals have little merit since he cited unreviewed papers he and other wrote such as "Why exactly did the WTC Collapse?"

3) Funny that a truther keeps insisting that debunkers prove that the chips aren't paint through experimentation, as if Jones could be expected to send his chips out to whoever would as for one.

4) As per the new fireproofing being applied over the old, I assume whoever said that is right but do you have a reference?

[WilliamSeger]

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

Submitted by ProfJones on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:07pm.


I don't need to be a materials scientist to know that for Jones to rule out paint after comparing to one completely unidentified type of paint is the smoking gun that this paper has not had anything resembling proper peer review. Requiring rash conclusion to be removed would be the very first thing a technical reviewer would do, and this paper appears to be so full of them that even non-specialists can easily spot them.

[16.5]

Hey truthers, this mutt had four tiny samples and tested them at least three times.

Do the math, folks, this guy is a fraud.

WHERE ARE THE OTHER RESULTS? YOU HAD THEM DONE IN 2007. PUBLISH THEM OR STFU

[AZCat]

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

I found the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

I think we need to find out if this MSDS is accurate for the primer as it was applied in the late 1960's.

[J. Edward Tremlett]

It's a dead movement. Ask yourself when you have ever in person seen a truther rally, or an ad for a truther presentation. I've seen exactly two, one merely being a bumper sticker, the other being a talk, and I live in a university town. I think even the hangers-on at Ground Zero have severely reduced in number (someone in NY correct me if I'm wrong). You're right, but you don't have to generate that much energy for that small a "movement". It's 99.999% an internet phenomenon, little more.

True, perhaps. But the internet noise chamber is pretty loud, and does get people on board.

"I read about it on teh internets, and it's gotta be true!" seems to be more common an excuse for believing that Cookie Monster shot JFK than we'd like to admit.

[T.A.M.]

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

I found the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

I am not sure if this is complete for the entire primer, as there is no mention of the vehicle components in this list. It is only a list of the hazardous components.

As well, I am not sure that you can state that the ratios between the elements here, by weight, should correspond to an equal differential in the spectral peaks.

It does, if nothing else however, show that zinc is a SMALL contributor to the overall composition of the primer, which is, IN GENERAL, in keeping with the spectra that Jones provides for his red chips.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I think we need to find out if this MSDS is accurate for the primer as it was applied in the late 1960's.

absolutely, as the Zinc Yellow used back then, may be different then the one used now, as could other components.

TAM:)

[ElMondoHummus]

Here we disagree.

While you are correct, that the overhanging point is that this was piss poor science, and for that alone should be dismissed, it is important to show how likely this is to be paint, as it was (A) a common element within the towers, that should have been considered by Jones, and (B) a common component found in other samples of the WTC dust as shown by other independent analysis of the WTC dust, that seemingly is MISSING or NOT REPORTED by Jones et al in their "paper".

TAM:)

I dunno, TAM... part of me is sympathetic to that line of pursuit. But the rest of me believes that it's not our burden to prove what it ultimately is. Rather, it's enough to illustrate what it isn't, and point out the fact that their own data shows it's not.

What I was also trying to do was snap people's focus away from deeper and deeper minituae. It's all too possible to fall into a can't-see-forest-for-the-trees trap, and that allows lurkers (and some participants) to walk away believing there's general uncertainty in the overall assertion against thermite when in fact there was only specific debate over whether it's paint, what kind of paint could it have been, yadda yadda... does that make sense?

Right now, I feel that unless it's done with specificity (like what Sunstealer was doing), the issue of it being paint seems to be more a distraction leading posters to bicker ("It's not paint", "Jones has proven it's not", "Why don't you prove it's paint"), and not a more likely alternative leading people to understand the weakness of the Bentham paper. Meh... I dunno... maybe I'll feel differently about this tomorrow...

[Orphia Nay]

A few days ago, someone in this subforum posted a link to an abstract (neither of those) about the contents of the WTC dust which contained paint, and now I can't find the post for the life of me. I thought it was Mr Mackey's post, but searching the forum and my history failed to find it.

It was an abstract with the full article available in either html or pdf at the bottom of the page, and the 10 or so authors were mainly from New Jersey. I've been thinking they would be worth contacting to find out how they determined that the dust was paint, and also what they think of Jones et al's paper. Does this paper ring any bells with anyone?


I found the paper.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html

We used SEM and TEM to examine chrysotile asbestos fibers, lead paint fragments, iron-chromium particles, and soot particles found in the < 75-µm fraction.

There's a contact email address, but I'm a bit vague about SEM and TEM, and chemistry in general to be asking questions of a scientist. Perhaps someone else might be interested.

[AZCat]

Hey, by the way, is anyone else not seeing this thread anymore in the 9/11 Conspiracy Forum page? It's obviously still here at JREF, but I have been missing it in the lists of threads in this forums.

I'm posting this to alert mods about the situation.

I still see it.

[T.A.M.]

I dunno, TAM... part of me is sympathetic to that line of pursuit. But the rest of me believes that it's not our burden to prove what it ultimately is. Rather, it's enough to illustrate what it isn't, and point out the fact that their own data shows it's not.

What I was also trying to do was snap people's focus away from deeper and deeper minituae. It's all too possible to fall into a can't-see-forest-for-the-trees trap, and that allows lurkers (and some participants) to walk away believing there's general uncertainty in the overall assertion against thermite when in fact there was only specific debate over whether it's paint, what kind of paint could it have been, yadda yadda... does that make sense?

Right now, I feel that unless it's done with specificity (like what Sunstealer was doing), the issue of it being paint seems to be more a distraction leading posters to bicker ("It's not paint", "Jones has proven it's not", "Why don't you prove it's paint"), and not a more likely alternative leading people to understand the weakness of the Bentham paper. Meh... I dunno... maybe I'll feel differently about this tomorrow...

I see your point. This is what I would say.

You have seen me post a number of times that for the most part I comment only now...very little debunking. You have also seen my explanation for that, which is that there has been nothing new. Now while the theory Jones is proposing is not new, his paper is. For that reason I feel I should at least try to address some of the things within it, in what ever little way I can. While I do not think there are many undecided lurkers left, I think we owe it to those few that are, to show them how poor Jone's science is, in what ever ways we can.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I found the paper.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/lioy-full.html



There's a contact email address, but I'm a bit vague about SEM and TEM, and chemistry in general to be asking questions of a scientist. Perhaps someone else might be interested.

Sunstealer seems to know what he is talking about, as does Mackey. Perhaps one of them might approach via email.

TAM:)

[J. Edward Tremlett]

I am neither a truther nor a scientist or engineer. But, the picture on the left looks like a slice of ham and the pictures on the right look like chunks of beef. What does it mean?

It's time for dinner.

[ElMondoHummus]

I see your point. This is what I would say.

You have seen me post a number of times that for the most part I comment only now...very little debunking. You have also seen my explanation for that, which is that there has been nothing new. Now while the theory Jones is proposing is not new, his paper is. For that reason I feel I should at least try to address some of the things within it, in what ever little way I can. While I do not think there are many undecided lurkers left, I think we owe it to those few that are, to show them how poor Jone's science is, in what ever ways we can.

TAM:)

All right. Fair enough. I've made that same argument myself in the past, so it would be stupid to argue against it now. Besides, I'm not so wedded to my position that I can't be talked out of it.

[boloboffin]

I still see it.

Oh, duh, I just put the OP on ignore. That's why the thread disappeared for me. :rolleyes:

[bill smith]

he red part of the splinter contain carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron, while the gray only contains iron and oxygen. Splinter are magnetic.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090406135508204

[leftysergeant]

he red part of the splinter contain carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron,

Which absolutely MUST be in paint, but seem ratrher odd for thermite.

while the gray only contains iron and oxygen. Splinter are magnetic.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090406135508204

Which is consistant with its having been applied over slightly oxidized steel.

[bill smith]

he red part of the splinter contain carbon, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron, while the gray only contains iron and oxygen. Splinter are magnetic.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090406135508204

'...only contains iron and oxygen'. It sounds like rust...but it is grey. There must be something more to it. I'd like to know a lot more about that grey material.

[T.A.M.]

It is not really grey, so much as a dark metallic color. I always found the use of "grey" in this context to be odd.

TAM:)

[leftysergeant]

'...only contains iron and oxygen'. It sounds like rust...but it is grey. There must be something more to it. I'd like to know a lot more about that grey material.

Some oxides of iron are black. Ever seen hematite jewelry?

[bill smith]

It is not really grey, so much as a dark metallic color. I always found the use of "grey" in this context to be odd.

TAM:)

If he really means that there was only iron and oxygen surely the colour would be more red than grey. I saw a video that said when particle size is reduced to nano-levels that the natural colour can change. Maybe it's got nano properties. I also wonder if ALL the nano thermite they recovered was exclusively backed with the grey material or if some of it was loose and unbacked.

[Dave Rogers]

no need to be rude Dave. its a valid question. the red chips release a lot of energy for their mass.

Which is the reason why it's not a valid question. High energy release per unit mass suggests that the chips don't contain the oxygen needed for combustion, because that tends to limit the energy density. Higher energy release per unit mass than TNT suggests that the material isn't thermite.

higher energy density may be against thermite but not against super thermite.

Again, this has been corrected several times in this thread. The energy density of "super thermite" is exactly the same as that of the same thermite composition with a greater particle size. The only difference in "super thermite" is that the energy is released faster, but that isn't what Jones is testing. Therefore, higher energy density argues against "super thermite" to exactly the same degree that it argues against thermite. This is basic chemistry.

peace and please try to remain polite in future exchanges.

In return, would you try to avoid asking questions that have been answered multiple times in the thread?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Your philosophy places you outside the ranks of the tradtional 9/11 Truther who unfailingly believes that 9/11 WAS an inside job. You may however be a Truther of sorts by your own definition.

That's the most telling quote I've ever seen from a truther. It's all about starting from a belief and looking for reinforcement, not about seeking the truth objectively.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh, duh, I just put the OP on ignore. That's why the thread disappeared for me. :rolleyes:

:dl:

D'oh!

[bill smith]

That's the most telling quote I've ever seen from a truther. It's all about starting from a belief and looking for reinforcement, not about seeking the truth objectively.

Dave

It was ever thus Dave. Did you think we were starting from a point of not having a very good idea who had carried out 9/11 ? '9/11 Truth', at least from my point of view means exposing the real Truth about 9/11.
I do not claim to be impartial but in my own interest I try to be objective. That doesn't mean I won't try on a hypothesis for size however..

[Dave Rogers]

It was ever thus Dave. Did you think we were starting from a point of not having a very good idea who had carried out 9/11 ?

On the contrary, I thought you were starting from a point of total certainty as to who carried out 9/11 before even looking at the evidence. That's not something to be proud of.

'9/11 Truth', at least from my point of view means exposing the real Truth about 9/11.

Absolute rubbish. '9/11 Truth' from your point of view is about starting from an unfailing belief that 9/11 was an inside job, then re-interpreting whatever evidence you find so as to reinforce that belief. If you were truly seeking to expose the real truth, your beliefs would be a conclusion, not a starting point.

I do not claim to be impartial but in my own interest I try to be objective. That doesn't mean I won't try on a hypothesis for size however..

As long as it involves 9/11 being an inside job, since you've decided reality doesn't fit you.

Dave

[16.5]

Hey Jonesie!
What happened to independent quantitative corroboration from back in 2007???
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1


Hey Jonesie!
What happened to these "independent results" from Dec 2007?
http://911blogger.com/node/13090


Hey Jonesie!
Why did you avoid mainstream technical journals. to "explore other avenues"??
http://911blogger.com/node/13090?page=1


Hey Jonesie!
Why did you not bother to test paint from the WTC?
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

Oh Hi, to all our friends at 911 Blogger, and in particular, a warm welcome to Dr. Jones himself, I'd just thought I bump this post.

[A W Smith]

It was ever thus Dave. Did you think we were starting from a point of not having a very good idea who had carried out 9/11 ? '9/11 Truth', at least from my point of view means exposing the real Truth about 9/11.
I do not claim to be impartial but in my own interest I try to be objective. That doesn't mean I won't try on a hypothesis for size however..

my bolding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[A W Smith]

4) As per the new fireproofing being applied over the old, I assume whoever said that is right but do you have a reference?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19271

which links to this file
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/NIST-Fireproofing.zip

Reviewed it last night which pretty much shows construction/renovation/sampling documents that show consistency/thickness/weight per cu ft results and draws attention to areas of concern re:spots missing existing fireproofing. Nowhere does it state procedures for removal of fire protection. just mitigation of any perceived loss of protection during renovation. Removal of ANY spray on fireproofing in an occupied structure during renovations is a big no no in the construction industry. It exposes the steel to potential fire hazards which are often more likely to occur during the renovation itself. Especially exposed because of the removal of suspended ceilings which are themselves always fire rated in a commercial building. Things that can cause a fire during renovation include, Solvent flash fires, Heat gun coming in contact with a combustible during a vinyl tile removal, Plumbers torch, electrical hazard. etc.

[T.A.M.]

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

I found the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf

Just a note about the Zinc in this primer.

It lists Zinc Compounds, as 2.98% by weight, but we must not forget that those compounds are not pure zinc, but complex molecules of Zinc Chromate, so the amount of Zinc would be even less, but still present, none the less.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

If professor Jones is reading this forum, I have the following questions,

1. Why was the tnemec primer used on the WTC beams not tested, with reference to the spectral analysis, in order to rule it in, or out, as a possible source for the red chips. There is photographic evidence in the NIST REPORT of a substance that at least on a macro level, looks incredibly similar to the "red chips" being claimed as a thermitic substance.

2. Why were the specimens of red chips not taken and examined both unwashed (as done) and after washing (not done) to see if the alleged surface contaminates were in fact contaminates, and not part of the chips themselves?

TAM:)

[bill smith]

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19271

which links to this file
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/documents/NIST-Fireproofing.zip

Reviewed it last night which pretty much shows construction/renovation/sampling documents that show consistency/thickness/weight per cu ft results and draws attention to areas of concern re:spots missing existing fireproofing. Nowhere does it state procedures for removal of fire protection. just mitigation of any perceived loss of protection during renovation. Removal of ANY spray on fireproofing in an occupied structure during renovations is a big no no in the construction industry. It exposes the steel to potential fire hazards which are often more likely to occur during the renovation itself. Especially exposed because of the removal of suspended ceilings which are themselves always fire rated in a commercial building. Things that can cause a fire during renovation include, Solvent flash fires, Heat gun coming in contact with a combustible during a vinyl tile removal, Plumbers torch, electrical hazard. etc.

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?

[tfk]

One billionth of a meter or 100,000 times thinner than a hair off the top of your head. Properties can change at this level. Less inside- more outside. More surface area. nd all that good stuff.
No, bill.

"Nano" does not mean "a billionth of a meter. That would be "nanometer".

Nano doesn't even mean "small". A "nano-light year" is not a short length.

It just means "billionth".

Your question, "does it have 'nano' properties"...

Absolutely it does. It has the EXACTLY the "nano properties" of a chunk of the same stuff that is a billion times bigger.

[A W Smith]

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?


Its irrelevant since the document proves that no spray on fireproofing was removed

[Dave Rogers]

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?

All the impact floors in WTC1 had been upgraded, but only one of the impact floors in WTC2. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but it looks like there's a pretty obvious absence of correlation either way between fireproofing upgrades and impact floors, upgrades and fire locations, and upgrades and collapse initiation zones, so long as you look at both towers rather than cherry-picking WTC1 and ignoring WTC2. I see from PrisonPlanet that Kevin Ryan tried to make it look a little more correlated by stretching the WTC2 impact zone down a bit to include one more upgraded floor, but as far as I recall 78 was the lowest floor hit, not 77.

Now, your comment was?

Dave

[bill smith]

All the impact floors in WTC1 had been upgraded, but only one of the impact floors in WTC2. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but it looks like there's a pretty obvious absence of correlation either way between fireproofing upgrades and impact floors, upgrades and fire locations, and upgrades and collapse initiation zones, so long as you look at both towers rather than cherry-picking WTC1 and ignoring WTC2. I see from PrisonPlanet that Kevin Ryan tried to make it look a little more correlated by stretching the WTC2 impact zone down a bit to include one more upgraded floor, but as far as I recall 78 was the lowest floor hit, not 77.

Now, your comment was?



Dave

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

[bill smith]

All the impact floors in WTC1 had been upgraded, but only one of the impact floors in WTC2. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but it looks like there's a pretty obvious absence of correlation either way between fireproofing upgrades and impact floors, upgrades and fire locations, and upgrades and collapse initiation zones, so long as you look at both towers rather than cherry-picking WTC1 and ignoring WTC2. I see from PrisonPlanet that Kevin Ryan tried to make it look a little more correlated by stretching the WTC2 impact zone down a bit to include one more upgraded floor, but as far as I recall 78 was the lowest floor hit, not 77.

Now, your comment was?

Dave
the Twins were not identical twins. It's worth bearing that in mind.

[metamars]

Your question, "does it have 'nano' properties"...

Absolutely it does. It has the EXACTLY the "nano properties" of a chunk of the same stuff that is a billion times bigger.

In terms of at least some thermite reactions, this is complete and utter nonsense. Anybody's who is interested in the effect of scale on properties of thermite would do well to check out MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf)

From the Conclusion section

It was shown that flame propagation velocity
depends sensitively on relative particle size, the relative particle size distribution, and
oxide shell formation temperature. It was also shown to depend upon particle size, oxide
shell thickness, and oxide shell strength, but not as sensitively.

Section 1.2 and 1.3 are well worth reading.

[A W Smith]

the Twins were not identical twins. It's worth bearing that in mind.



Perhaps you can point out the substantial differences between the two towers then? I know of a few details but lets see how much you know about them. You have five minutes.

[bill smith]

Perhaps you can point out the substantial differences between the two towers then? I know of a few details but lets see how much you know about them. You have five minutes.

I know that at least some of he core columns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

[boloboffin]

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

That's yet another example of how Kevin Ryan is a LYING LIAR. It's not true at all.

[Gamolon]

I know that at least some of he core colmns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

That's because the cores were turned 90 degress from one another. Both towers' long axis walls of the core were about 60 feet from the perimeter walls and both towers' short axis walls of the core were about 37 feet from the perimeter walls.

[boloboffin]

I know that at least some of he core colmns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

Oh, this is cute. The cores were rectangles in the square perimeter tubes. The long edge in one tower went North-South, and in the other went East-West. So one difference is that the basic design was built 90 degrees different. How does that change the actual structure, bill?

[Dave Rogers]

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

(a) It isn't true. (b) Even if it were, it would be rendered entirely unremarkable by the fact that all but one of the WTC2 impact floors weren't upgraded, unless the Impossibly Vast Evil Conspiracy decided, for reasons only imaginable to the mind of a budding Dr. Evil, to demolish the two WTC towers in different ways. Still, why have an impossibly complicated conspiracy when you can figure out a way to make it twice as complicated?

I know that at least some of he core colmns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

When you find out why that's an epic fail, you might even find it funny yourself.

Dave

[bill smith]

That's yet another example of how Kevin Ryan is a LYING LIAR. It's not true at all.

Ask Dave for confirmtion one way or the other...

[A W Smith]

I know that at least some of he core columns in WTC1 were only 37 feet from the North perimeter wall where the plane went in. I think that was 60 feet in WTC2. A substantial difference That will do you for now.lol. Mere seconds too....

Thats nothing more than core/building orientation. Turn one of the towers 90 degrees and they are identical. The planes are not a part of the structure so regardless of where they impacted does not make the buildings themselves different. But there are a few other small differences. (in the buildings themselves) Care to point them out?


edit,
heres a clue to one of the differences. one of the towers is a bit taller than the other. explain why. (has nothing to do with the lack of, or the inclusion of the antenna.)

[Sunstealer]

IZinc (Zn) is clearly present (most likely in the oxide form - ZnO).Or Zinc Chromate ZnCrO4 which is commonly called Zinc yellow and used in paints.

[tarrou]

As a dane i have had the opportunity to read an interview with Niels Harrit, one of the authors to the article.
( http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_st ovet_fra_world_trade_center/niels_harrit_videnskabeligt_bevis_for_gammel_viden _om_911 )

In the interview he is asked:

'How can you be sure that what you have found is nanothermite?'

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.

I guess one just to have refute these two points to make an ex-truther of Niels Harrit ;)

[bill smith]

(a) It isn't true. (b) Even if it were, it would be rendered entirely unremarkable by the fact that all but one of the WTC2 impact floors weren't upgraded, unless the Impossibly Vast Evil Conspiracy decided, for reasons only imaginable to the mind of a budding Dr. Evil, to demolish the two WTC towers in different ways. Still, why have an impossibly complicated conspiracy when you can figure out a way to make it twice as complicated?



When you find out why that's an epic fail, you might even find it funny yourself.

Dave

I like to see the Tower collapss as seperate events not inextricably bound together in the technicalities of their collapses. They only looked like peas in a pod.

Why wait ?....why don't you explain the 'epic fail' and give us all a good laugh right away ?

[phunk]

In terms of at least some thermite reactions, this is complete and utter nonsense. Anybody's who is interested in the effect of scale on properties of thermite would do well to check out MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf)

From the Conclusion section



Section 1.2 and 1.3 are well worth reading.

Which agrees with what everyone except the truthers are saying, that it releases the same amount of energy, except it does it faster. This is high school chemistry, it's not hard to understand.

[Gamolon]

I like to see the Tower collapss as seperate events not inextricably bound together in the technicalities of their collapses. They only looked like peas in a pod.

So what were the major differences? You already got one of your claims wrong about the core columns to perimeter wall dimensions.

[Pardalis]

Did you happen to notice which floors of WTC1 received a fireproofing upgrade ?

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

Yes it is a coincidence, how could they possibly have predicted not only the impact floors, but that the second plane would hit a few stories lower?

[bill smith]

So what were the major differences? You already got one of your claims wrong about the core columns to perimeter wall dimensions.Can you tell me where I am wrong to any extent that actually matters in the figures I gave ?

[nicepants]

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.


Thermite has a very HIGH ignition temperature (Usually requiring a magnesium ribbon lit by a blowtorch, or similar)....does this ignition temperature change based on the size of the reactants?

"Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. " - Wikipedia

[Dave Rogers]

Why wait ?....why don't you explain the 'epic fail' and give us all a good laugh right away ?

Your supposed substantial difference between the two towers was that flight 11 hit WTC1 along the long axis of the core, whereas 175 hit WTC2 along the short axis. You're trying to say two buildings were different because the front of one wasn't the same as the side of the other.

Dave

[bill smith]

Your supposed substantial difference between the two towers was that flight 11 hit WTC1 along the long axis of the core, whereas 175 hit WTC2 along the short axis. You're trying to say two buildings were different because the front of one wasn't the same as the side of the other.

Dave

So you are saying that the core placements in both buildings were identical ? Correct me if I am wrong.

[Sunstealer]

In the data sheet http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf it mentions "Stoddard Solvent". I'd never heard of this so a quick google reveals it's nothing more than White Spirit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spirit). Coincidentally I'm renovating an old piece of furniture atm using a mixture of 2 parts linseed oil, 1 part turpentine, 1 part vinegar, 1 part white spirit - takes of all the years of stain varnish etc, but doesn't strip the original polish and brings the wood grain up nicely.

[Dave Rogers]

So you are saying that the core placements in both buildings were identical ? Correct me if I am wrong.

The core dimensions and structures in the buildings were identical, and the rest of the structure was identically placed relative to the core. The buildings were oriented differently, which is not a substantial difference, any more so than the fact that they were in different places. Quite simply, you got it wrong.

Dave

[bill smith]

The core dimensions and structures in the buildings were identical, and the rest of the structure was identically placed relative to the core. The buildings were oriented differently, which is not a substantial difference, any more so than the fact that they were in different places. Quite simply, you got it wrong.

Dave

I am delighted to take accurate information on board at any time. But tell me this. Both planes struck on the long face of their respective buildings. One more in the centre and one more to one side. How come the core was only 37 feet away from the entry hole in WTC1 and around 60 feet away in WTC2 ? Were the cores not aligned equidistant from the perimeter walls ?

[boloboffin]

I am delighted to take accurate information on board at any time. But tell me this. Both planes struck on the long face of their respective buildings. One more in the centre and one more to one side. How come the core was only 37 feet away from the entry hole in WTC1 and around 60 feet aaway in WTC2 ? Were the cores not aligned equidistant from the perimeter walls ?

No. The cores were rectangles. The perimeters were squares (and hence the buildings were squares). The planes struck one building on the long face of one core and on the short face of the other.

[beachnut]

I am delighted to take accurate information on board at any time. But tell me this. Both planes struck on the long face of their respective buildings. One more in the centre and one more to one side. How come the core was only 37 feet away from the entry hole in WTC1 and around 60 feet away in WTC2 ? Were the cores not aligned equidistant from the perimeter walls ?
This is why you believe Jones and his liars due to your lack of knowledge and inability to research the lies they produce for people like you.


lol - long face of a 207 foot square buildings. Like square. One acre; but there is a long and short side to the core; ...

This is your big problem, your failure to research anything about 911 save the lies, hearsay, and delusions you support with only talk.

What was the calcium doing in the thermite chip? Zinc and chromium too? Why?

The dolts put this in their paper of woo...
Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. Oops, Jones dismisses elements in his "paint chip" he does not want to contaminate his findings with.

[alienentity]

Kevin Ryan said something about the only floors in WTC1 that had had a fireproofing upgrade were the ones that suffered the impact or had any longer lasting or fiercer fires. Is that true ? It's a very remarkable coincidence if it is.

bill, another fascinating question derives from the fireproofing upgrade, regarding the alleged application of Acme Super Duper Nanothermite paint. That is, Steven Jones commented in 2007 that the grey and red chips were 'present in all four samples that I and colleagues are exploring in depth at this time'

So the chips were found in 100% of the samples he had at the time.

Now then. If the ASD Nanothermite paint were applied on only the floors Kevin Ryan alludes to, what are the statistical chances of it winding up in 100% of Jones' samples? Probably extremely low, near zero.

Therefore the most likely reasons:

1) the chips must be an extremely common material to have such distribution
2) if they are indeed ASD Nanothermite paint, perhaps somebody put it into the samples after they were collected.

I can't think of any other scenario, can you? Something is rotten in Utah.

[bill smith]

No. The cores were rectangles. The perimeters were squares (and hence the buildings were squares). The planes struck one building on the long face of one core and on the short face of the other.

I see. A good explanation. I see what Dave meant now. So the cores were rectangles within square buildings. That explains the different distances to the core from the entry holes. Thanks.

[bill smith]

The core dimensions and structures in the buildings were identical, and the rest of the structure was identically placed relative to the core. The buildings were oriented differently, which is not a substantial difference, any more so than the fact that they were in different places. Quite simply, you got it wrong.

Dave

Yes I did get it wrong. Thanks for putting me right. I had never considered hat the cores were orientated differently. So are you saying that for the rest the actual contructions were the same with no major differences ?

[A W Smith]

Yes I did get it wrong. Thanks for putting me right. I had never considered hat the cores were orientated differently. So are you saying that for the rest the actual contructions were the same with no major differences ?


yes. Do you want to know the other details? are you willing to learn?

[Swing Dangler]

Not so far as I noticed -- in typical Truth Movement fashion, they'd rather forego analysis of the million tons of debris in favor of exactly four flecks of random coating...:rolleyes:

A more thorough (http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2002/110p703-714lioy/abstract.html) dust study reveals quite a bit of paint, enough to impact the overall elemental and chemical populations significantly.

Four specks. Out of all that. Just imagine what they'd be saying if they stumbled across a book of matches in the debris?

Wow, still misrepresenting things I see. Forgo analysis of millions of tons of debris in favor of four specks? Sorry there was a bit more than 4 specks in their sample.
From the government report you cite: Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001 The bulk samples incuded dust and smoke.
3 bulk samples now equal millions of tons of debris at Jref??:big:

Come on Ryan, your a JPL guy, don't you think that misrepresentation would be called out?


Rmackey-Anyway, the one thing that cracks me up the most about this paper is its own self-inconsistency... Several times we are told that the stuff can't be paint, notably in Section 7. But in Section 5 they talk about how their super-nano-destructo-stuff can be "painted" on, and they reference a material science report that uses Viton, a synthetic rubber compound, as a binder. So... they're saying that it can't be paint but it could be "paint?" What?

Come on Ryan? You can't identify term "paint" as a noun versus the term "paint" when used as a verb? See Paint at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paint :newlol

The biggest rebuttal happens to be a verbaige issue you don't understand? :mgduh

The issue of paint being the source of the controversy is covered in the paper. Typical debunker reaction to offer alternatives before reading all of the facts.

Now what I would suggest to all of the alleged scientists here is publish a scientific rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal shut Dr. Jones up is(sorry your "opinion" of a journal in no way discredits the publication itself, especially Benthem.) If so, of course, you automatically reject every article at Benthem Science Journal. Not only that, you may want to contact every expert in their relevant field and let them know their research is junk because they published at Benthem, not because of their work of course, just the title of the publisher. LOL!

I'm sure the great minds here should be able to type up a rebuttal and have it published by a peer review journal.

I doubt that will happen of course because the debunking community will let politics get in the way of the scientific process, including scientific rebuttals.

By the way, have any of you found a structure that will have the top 10% part crush down the bottom 90% yet and remain in tact? I noticed everyone avoided Heiwa's scientific challenge. I suspect because you know it can't be done. It's just like the theoretical math behind a dandelion supporting the weight of an elephant hanging over the edge of a cliff. The math says its possible, but in reality, its not. Sort of like crush down/up crap excuse for the towers collapse.

But anyway, please post at 9/11 Blogger or Scholars for 9/11 Truth or and Justice or here for that matter when you have a suitable rebuttal published by a peer reviewed journal.

If you can't, then your objections to the paper amount to hot air and lack scientific merit irregardless of your title. Cheers!

[Pardalis]

Yes I did get it wrong. Thanks for putting me right.

Did I read that right? :eek:

Good on you, Bill. :)

[Pardalis]

I doubt that will happen of course because the debunking community will let politics get in the way of the scientific process, including scientific rebuttals.

Did you notice everyone who worked on that paper were already truther activists?

[Kent1]

As a dane i have had the opportunity to read an interview with Niels Harrit, one of the authors to the article.
( http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_st ovet_fra_world_trade_center/niels_harrit_videnskabeligt_bevis_for_gammel_viden _om_911 )

In the interview he is asked:

'How can you be sure that what you have found is nanothermite?'

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.

I guess one just to have refute these two points to make an ex-truther of Niels Harrit ;)

Well, Iron dust will ignite at 430C.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/i7500.htm

[Galileo]

My point is that Bentham is no more reputable for having published the works of Nobel laureates if they still do not obey the standards of a peer reviewed journal.

They do obey the standards of peer review. You just make a bogus claim with no evidence.

It is the NIST reports om the WTC that are not peer reviewed. They do not make their computer models public, so it would be impossible to peer review them even if someone wanted to.

[boloboffin]

Well, Iron dust will also ignite at 430C.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/i7500.htm

I guess that makes it protothermite. :boxedin:

[roundhead]

As a dane i have had the opportunity to read an interview with Niels Harrit, one of the authors to the article.
( http://www.videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_st ovet_fra_world_trade_center/niels_harrit_videnskabeligt_bevis_for_gammel_viden _om_911 )

In the interview he is asked:

'How can you be sure that what you have found is nanothermite?'

His reply (paraphrased and translated by me):

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'.

I guess one just to have refute these two points to make an ex-truther of Niels Harrit ;)


Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.

[Senenmut]

ill rephrase a question i had pages back....maybe im not asking it right.

the reaction should produce iron (which jones has showed being the iron spheres) and aluminum oxide. ive seen videos where white smoke is said to be the aluminum oxide. i dont see anywhere in the paper that states they found aluminum oxide after the reaction. would it strenghthen their case if they do look and perhaps find it post reaction?

[Sunstealer]

If he really means that there was only iron and oxygen surely the colour would be more red than grey. I saw a video that said when particle size is reduced to nano-levels that the natural colour can change. Maybe it's got nano properties. I also wonder if ALL the nano thermite they recovered was exclusively backed with the grey material or if some of it was loose and unbacked.MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide - Fe2O3 is grey and shares the same characteristics under the SEM. If you look closely at this picture on the left.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpgWhich I just love showing.

You can clearly see a thin dark greyish material flaking off the surface of the steel. It's highly consistent with Jones' macrographs and would be the correct composition because Fe3O4 is known as black rust. This is why it's important to do x-ray powder diffraction or XRD tests in order to determine the crystallography of the sample which will then give you the exact compound.

Fe304 has an isometric - spinnel crystal structure - http://www.reade.com/Products/Minerals_and_Ores/magnetite.html explains properties and why it's magnetic.

Fe2O3 is usually rhombohedral (rhomboidal) and non-magnetic. There is another possibility because there is another form of Fe2O3 called Maghemite, y-Fe2O3. http://webmineral.com/data/Maghemite.shtml and this has an Isometric - Tetartoidal crystal structure and is magnetic.

A great site for explaining crystal shapes. (http://webmineral.com/crystall.shtml)

EDS data will only give you the elements.

In light of this photo I'm adding to my theory that the "gray layer" is most likely this "black scale" (with the continuing possibility of it being MIO). The black layer is the result of either

12 FeO(OH) --> 4 Fe3O4 + 6 H2O + O2

6 Fe2O3 --> 4 Fe3O4 + O2

Fe3O4 is haematite and is magnetic where as Fe2O3 isn't. I've read more about Jones and how they separated out this "thermite". They used a magnet.

Thermite is

2Al + Fe2O3

there is no magnetic material there (unless using maghemite) so why are they using that method for separation?

What they will do is pick up anything with Fe3O4 in. The red paint with Fe3O4 attached will be separated. The red paint contains Fe2O3 (in rhomboidal crystalline form, bright white in the SEM pictures).

The more and more I run this through my brain the more and more the simple things come to the surface. Rather than looking at and getting carried away with the pretty pictures and spectra it's always worth gathering more information before launching into the analysis.

I'd also like to thank Bill Smith, because without reading his post I wouldn't have necessarily gone back to basics - thanks truther!

[A W Smith]

Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.


nanu nanu. get your rainbow suspenders on rivethead

'Using a method called XEDS [...] we compared the red chips to conventional thermite, and found a fingerprint-like sign that they are the same. At the same time, they [the red chips] ignite at 430C . Such a low temperature identifies it as nanothermite'. "Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. " - Wikipedia

[alienentity]

Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.

Actually, you don't need a conspiracy theory to examine and explain the plane impacts, fires and collapses. That's just physics.

It depends whether you are trying to answer 'what', 'how' or 'why'.

Truthers seem to start with 'why', answer that question with 'US government', then proceed backwards to 'what'.
This unfortunately is the reverse of an objective analysis. That's why the 'truth' movement is constantly driven towards a conspiracy model, since it is the only one they are willing to consider.

Make sense to you?

[roundhead]

nanu nanu. get your rainbow suspenders on rivethead

In their experiment, it ignited at 430c.

They said it was a nano technology thermite, not what you referenced.Apples and oranges.

Thats like saying because Magglio Ordonez hits 320, that so so does everybody else. Thermite and nano thermite are two different players with different statistics and characteristics.

If they ignited it at 430c, it ignites at 430c

[Galileo]

I don't need to be a materials scientist to know that for Jones to rule out paint after comparing to one completely unidentified type of paint is the smoking gun that this paper has not had anything resembling proper peer review. Requiring rash conclusion to be removed would be the very first thing a technical reviewer would do, and this paper appears to be so full of them that even non-specialists can easily spot them.

That was already considered by the referees. Your comments are typical of a non-scientific conspiracy website, making ignorant statements with no evidence.

[alienentity]

In their experiment, it ignited at 430c.

They said it was a nano technology thermite, not what you referenced.Apples and oranges.

...

If they ignited it at 430c, it ignites at 430c

And where is your proof that nanothermite ignites at 430c? Show us some documentation for that claim please.

[nicepants]

They do obey the standards of peer review. You just make a bogus claim with no evidence.

It is the NIST reports om the WTC that are not peer reviewed. They do not make their computer models public, so it would be impossible to peer review them even if someone wanted to.

The extensive list of engineers, scientists, experts, etc on the report itself was not enough for you? The NIST report was a product of many many more experts than any of jones' papers, and criticism was welcomed from anyone...including the general public. If any of jones papers had as much support from the mainstream experts that the NIST report did, I wouldn't care if he submitted them to legitimate peer review journals....it would be unnecessary.

[roundhead]

That was already considered by the referees. Your comments are typical of a non-scientific conspiracy website, making ignorant statements with no evidence.


HeHe.........

Exactly, what we have on here are armchair quarterbacks that havent conducted scientific experiments on the dust, as these credentialed professionals have, and that being the case, they are slumped in their seats way out on center field in the boo bird section.

Until i see this study scientifically refuted, i have no reason to believe its findings arent accurate.

Neither does anybody else on the planet with more than one brain cell

[ElMondoHummus]

Excellent! This (below) is good work!!!

MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide - Fe2O3 is grey and shares the same characteristics under the SEM. If you look closely at this picture on the left.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpgWhich I just love showing.

You can clearly see a thin dark greyish material flaking off the surface of the steel. It's highly consistent with Jones' macrographs and would be the correct composition because Fe3O4 is known as black rust. This is why it's important to do x-ray powder diffraction or XRD tests in order to determine the crystallography of the sample which will then give you the exact compound.

Fe304 has an isometric - spinnel crystal structure - http://www.reade.com/Products/Minerals_and_Ores/magnetite.html explains properties and why it's magnetic.

Fe2O3 is usually rhombohedral (rhomboidal) and non-magnetic. There is another possibility because there is another form of Fe2O3 called Maghemite, y-Fe2O3. http://webmineral.com/data/Maghemite.shtml and this has an Isometric - Tetartoidal crystal structure and is magnetic.

A great site for explaining crystal shapes. (http://webmineral.com/crystall.shtml)

EDS data will only give you the elements.

In light of this photo I'm adding to my theory that the "gray layer" is most likely this "black scale" (with the continuing possibility of it being MIO). The black layer is the result of either

12 FeO(OH) --> 4 Fe3O4 + 6 H2O + O2

6 Fe2O3 --> 4 Fe3O4 + O2

Fe3O4 is haematite and is magnetic where as Fe2O3 isn't. I've read more about Jones and how they separated out this "thermite". They used a magnet.

Thermite is

2Al + Fe2O3

there is no magnetic material there (unless using maghemite) so why are they using that method for separation?

What they will do is pick up anything with Fe3O4 in. The red paint with Fe3O4 attached will be separated. The red paint contains Fe2O3 (in rhomboidal crystalline form, bright white in the SEM pictures).

The more and more I run this through my brain the more and more the simple things come to the surface. Rather than looking at and getting carried away with the pretty pictures and spectra it's always worth gathering more information before launching into the analysis.

I'd also like to thank Bill Smith, because without reading his post I wouldn't have necessarily gone back to basics - thanks truther!

[Sunstealer]

The issue of paint being the source of the controversy is covered in the paper. Typical debunker reaction to offer alternatives before reading all of the facts. Really. Well if you've read all of the facts please point out in Jones' paper where they describe the source, composition, maker and manufacturer part number of the paint they tested.

If you can't then you cannot claim that they have ruled out paint. Go back and read Jones' paper carefully and slowly and find the information that I need - what paint did they test - Dulux?

I predict a one line answer and a dodge, handwave, etc.

[roundhead]

And where is your proof that nanothermite ignites at 430c? Show us some documentation for that claim please.

read the paper, its right in there

[16.5]

But anyway, please post at 9/11 Blogger or Scholars for 9/11 Truth or and Justice or here for that matter when you have a suitable rebuttal published by a peer reviewed journal.

If you can't, then your objections to the paper amount to hot air and lack scientific merit irregardless of your title. Cheers!

Oh. My. God. Look what the cat dragged in! Hey Swing, long time no see, well that's not strictly true, we noticed you taking potshots at us time after time over on the CIT board. How are fatty and Craig anyway? It's kind of funny that you suggest that we post over at 911 Blogger, though. They won't No Planer nitwits like the CIT boys post over there, now will they?

But I digress, Anyhow, good to have you back! While you're here, couple of quick comments. First, aren't you troubled by the fact that Jones refuses to disclose the independent test results he got in 2007?

Second, tell you what, when Jones publishes something in an independently peer reviewed journal, not a piece of crap vanity rag like this one, we'll publish a rebuttal. Until then, keep searching for the flyover witnesses, No Planer.

[bill smith]

HeHe.........

Exactly, what we have on here are armchair quarterbacks that havent conducted scientific experiments on the dust, as these credentialed professionals have, and that being the case, they are slumped in their seats way out on center field in the boo bird section.

Until i see this study scientifically refuted, i have no reason to believe its findings arent accurate.

Neither does anybody else on the planet with more than one brain cell


Maybe Steven Jones should make an analysis along with a bunch of independent chemical engineers . Everything carefully filmed. Then they could synthesise a arger batch of exactly the same stuff and maintain a legal chain of custody. Then they could melt a large steel clumn in front of an audience of professionals using the mixture. That would settle it for once and for all.

[roundhead]

Really. Well if you've read all of the facts please point out in Jones' paper where they describe the source, composition, maker and manufacturer part number of the paint they tested.

If you can't then you cannot claim that they have ruled out paint. Go back and read Jones' paper carefully and slowly and find the information that I need - what paint did they test - Dulux?

I predict a one line answer and a dodge, handwave, etc.


I suggest you write a peer reviewed rebuttal to this paper, something nobody on earth has done even with the "14 points" paper.

Until then, this verbal jabbering is simply that, an excercise in gill plate flapping that has zero scientific merit.

[roundhead]

The extensive list of engineers, scientists, experts, etc on the report itself was not enough for you? The NIST report was a product of many many more experts than any of jones' papers, and criticism was welcomed from anyone...including the general public. If any of jones papers had as much support from the mainstream experts that the NIST report did, I wouldn't care if he submitted them to legitimate peer review journals....it would be unnecessary.

many people wrote rebuttals to the NIST report, and they allowed only a very short window to accept such rebuttals, once the report was made public.

Lets see if anybody on the planet scientifically rebutts this nano thermite paper.I would think people would be crawling out of the woodwork to do so.

[Swing Dangler]

Did you notice everyone who worked on that paper were already truther activists?

Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.

I think we can agree there should be no politics in science.

[roundhead]

Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.

I think we can agree there should be no politics in science.


Wow, you earned some respect from me

[Sunstealer]

Well, Iron dust will ignite at 430C.
http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/i7500.htmInteresting - we also know that rusting is an exothermic reaction (that truthers means it gives off heat) and therefore is an increase in energy. They observed a matrix of a Carbon based material (most likely some form of binder) in the SEM photos and EDS. Could this also ignite?

[TexasJack]

Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.

I think we can agree there should be no politics in science.

Hey personal name removed is back, still spewing out the same garbage...

Please do not use a member's personal name, if that name is not public knowledge. This comes under Rule 8: You will not post a person's private information that is not otherwise publicly available or if it is not required for a discussion. (If the name is publicly available, I was not able to find it in a casual search, and better safe than sorry where Rule 8 is concerned.)

[Swing Dangler]

MIO - Micaceous Iron Oxide - Fe2O3 is grey and shares the same characteristics under the SEM. If you look closely at this picture on the left.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpgWhich I just love showing.

You can clearly see a thin dark greyish material flaking off the surface of the steel. It's highly consistent with Jones' macrographs and would be the correct composition because Fe3O4 is known as black rust. This is why it's important to do x-ray powder diffraction or XRD tests in order to determine the crystallography of the sample which will then give you the exact compound.

Fe304 has an isometric - spinnel crystal structure - http://www.reade.com/Products/Minerals_and_Ores/magnetite.html explains properties and why it's magnetic.

Fe2O3 is usually rhombohedral (rhomboidal) and non-magnetic. There is another possibility because there is another form of Fe2O3 called Maghemite, y-Fe2O3. http://webmineral.com/data/Maghemite.shtml and this has an Isometric - Tetartoidal crystal structure and is magnetic.

A great site for explaining crystal shapes. (http://webmineral.com/crystall.shtml)

EDS data will only give you the elements.

In light of this photo I'm adding to my theory that the "gray layer" is most likely this "black scale" (with the continuing possibility of it being MIO). The black layer is the result of either

12 FeO(OH) --> 4 Fe3O4 + 6 H2O + O2

6 Fe2O3 --> 4 Fe3O4 + O2

Fe3O4 is haematite and is magnetic where as Fe2O3 isn't. I've read more about Jones and how they separated out this "thermite". They used a magnet.

Thermite is

2Al + Fe2O3

there is no magnetic material there (unless using maghemite) so why are they using that method for separation?

What they will do is pick up anything with Fe3O4 in. The red paint with Fe3O4 attached will be separated. The red paint contains Fe2O3 (in rhomboidal crystalline form, bright white in the SEM pictures).

The more and more I run this through my brain the more and more the simple things come to the surface. Rather than looking at and getting carried away with the pretty pictures and spectra it's always worth gathering more information before launching into the analysis.

I'd also like to thank Bill Smith, because without reading his post I wouldn't have necessarily gone back to basics - thanks truther!


For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs.

I look forward to viewing your evidence in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in the form of electron images, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results.

And for the sake of science, please also list the methods, materials,and conclusions you use when producing your paper as well.

Thanks!

[Galileo]

The extensive list of engineers, scientists, experts, etc on the report itself was not enough for you? The NIST report was a product of many many more experts than any of jones' papers, and criticism was welcomed from anyone...including the general public. If any of jones papers had as much support from the mainstream experts that the NIST report did, I wouldn't care if he submitted them to legitimate peer review journals....it would be unnecessary.

You are arguing from authority, not from science. Did you not learn your Galileo when you were young?

The NIST report does indeed have many qualified scientists. But their report has not been peer reviewed by referees, nor have they released their computer models, so it is impossible at this time to subject them to peer review.

the NIST report is just that, a government report, nothing more.

Also, NIST is suspected in the 9/11 cover-up. Real science regarding 9/11 should not be left to the very people who are suspected.

[alienentity]

HeHe.........

Until i see this study scientifically refuted, i have no reason to believe its findings arent accurate.

Neither does anybody else on the planet with more than one brain cell


Since the chemical composition of these chips is fairly well established, it can be calculated what the energy potential is (as Mr. Mackey did earlier) http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4588566#post4588566

and given the very thin coating of this material it is irrelevant whether it's call 'nanothermite', 'paint' or whatever. That's a moot point.

You can't heat and destroy a steel beam with the stuff. It would be no more effective than burning paint. Worse, you don't need to rebut Jones' paper to understand the impossibility of trying to paint this stuff onto structural steel throughout both towers.... anybody with more than one brain cell can see that.

Do you really think this needs a full-on scientific rebuttal to be viewed skeptically?

[beachnut]

...
If you can't, then your objections to the paper amount to hot air and lack scientific merit irregardless of your title. Cheers!
Why are you drank the Kool-aid followers challenged in science. Here is Jones cherry picking his evidence by ignoring the other elements. Jones delusion is funny as hell when you take the time to be skeptical, or exercise your own mind. Why does Jones act like a moron? Funny you fall for his insanity.

Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.

If you lack knowledge you fall for the insanity of Jones’ implied conclusions and the center of thermite in the ceiling tile Jones endorses.

If that is not the silliest ideas, then your post supporting Jones’ delusions is. Keep drinking the Kool-aid from the cult of Jones Thermite with calcium for healty bones.

You have to pay to have Jones' tripe published but seeing the insanity is priceless.

[Sunstealer]

Or prove his two points are 100% correct, and effectively send all the OCT slurpers who infest this place home.You don't know what XEDS stands for nor do you understand how it works. How much SEM experience do you have Roundhead? I am going to bet 0 hours. If you knew what this method is capable of then you would know that you cannot determine compounds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_compound) only the presence of elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_element). If you'd bother to read my posts you'd have seen that I mention this atleast 3 times and another poster with SEM experience confirms this. You have to use the semi-quantitative EDS/EDX/XEDS software in order to get a rough read out of what compounds (not elements it's difficult I know) are present.

This is why you use a different technique. For example XRD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XRD) would be good in this instance or FTIR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_spectroscopy)for organic compounds.

It's blatantly obvious that you don't know the difference so click on the links and learn something new today.

The guy you quote also doesn't know the difference.

[ElMondoHummus]

Enough about "nano" being used as a crutch! How many times are we going to have to beat this into the ground?? Nanothermite is thermite, it's just been processed to a finer degree! Nothing - I say again, nothing - about processing changes the energetic property of the reactants!

Does "nano"wood ground to a sandlike state have any more joules/calories/BTU/whatever per gram than wood planks or logs? Does "nano"gasoline have any more heat per unit of mass because it's in smaller drops than gasoline in a cup? No! So why in God's name do we try to handwave the energy differences away with that stupid, ridiculous "It's nanothermite" argument?

Once again: The energy available in a ferrous-oxide/aluminum reduction-oxidation reaction is the same regardless of how fine the individual reactants are ground! What about the fact that this mysterious "nano" property is supposed to change the basic energy available in the redox reaction? And what about the fact that it's some "nano" material is supposed to change the activation energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_energy)? Does anyone here advocating this paper even know what "activation energy (http://www.docbrown.info/page03/3_51energy.htm#3)" is without clicking on either of these links??

Waving the prefix "nano" around like a talisman does not hide the fact that the substance Jones et. al. has tested is not thermite. It's not "nano" thermite, it's not "super" thermite. He's not seeing a rust-aluminum redox reaction! That's basic! When a liquid freezes at some different temperature than 32oF (0oC), do we try to pass it off as "super-water"? Or do we do reach basic intelligent conclusion and realize we're not dealing with water??

Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT!

[alienentity]

For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs.

etc etc

Thanks!

Hey, Swing Dangler, I trust you've been giving the same advise to all those truther websites who jumped to CD conclusions BEFORE this paper was published by Bentham?

I just know you did that. After all, we wouldn't want the 9/11 truth movement to be unscientific, would we? They might come to erroneous conclusions!

Nice to know people like you are keeping things honest. good for you.

[Sunstealer]

ill rephrase a question i had pages back....maybe im not asking it right.

the reaction should produce iron (which jones has showed being the iron spheres) and aluminum oxide. ive seen videos where white smoke is said to be the aluminum oxide. i dont see anywhere in the paper that states they found aluminum oxide after the reaction. would it strenghthen their case if they do look and perhaps find it post reaction?Another valid question.

The big problem they have is that they cannot distinguish the source of the aluminium present because of the method they use - EDS. The pre-DSC sample will almost certainly contain alumina in some form. The difficulty will be ascertaining how much is there in the first place and how much post DSC testing. However, I would expect to see clear photomicrographs with accompanying EDS on separate alumina particles because as you say this is evidence of the thermite reaction. They haven't done this. They managed it for "iron-microspheres".

In all honesty I actually think that the source of these spheres in the WTC dust is burnt paint.

[16.5]

For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs.

I look forward to viewing your evidence in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in the form of electron images, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results.

And for the sake of science, please also list the methods, materials,and conclusions you use when producing your paper as well.

Thanks!

Swing, swing is back, back again....

Hey Swing, let me let you in on a little tip, in "science" you don't necessarily have to repeat a test! You can take the data that the proponent of a theory publishes, and analyze that data, and using that same data, point out where they have gone wrong.

Am I going to fast here, Swing?

Say, looking at the data that Jones uses, I notice he doesn't publish the results from his tests in 2007. Now what do you think about that Swing?

Hey Swing, we are taking bets on what type of paint jones tested. Given Ryan's involvement, we are guessing "water" colors (snicker).

[alienentity]

Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT!

Don't you know it's a proven scientific fact that nanothermite ignites at 430c?

That's the difference!

The jets were used to ignite the thermite paint, which then quickly burned right through the buildings down to the ground. You can see the nanosmoke pouring out all the way down.

That's why the towers collapsed almost instantly after the plane impacts, and faster than freefall speed.

[The Platypus]

The arrogant claims of, and self given labels of "truth, truther, the only ones that know the truth, etc"
The attempts to do end runs around proper established scientific methods.
Automatic infallibility, without any verification, to anyone that is in or agrees with the "truther" side in any way.
The lame mental gymnastic apologetics to attempt too cover up truck sized holes.
The false dicotomy of only two choices. With or against.
The demonizing of everyone that isn't in the "truther" cult.
The lack of reason, logic, or thinking, instead choosing blind faith.
The leaders are never wrong about anything.
The arrogant superiority complex of being a "truther".
The claims of expertise if everything and anything while dismissing the vast majority of real experts that totally disagree.
The quickness to insult and dismiss anyone that doesn't just immediately agree with everything and anything they propose.
The sectarian divides within the cult. All claiming to be the only ones that have it right.
The constant snake oil salesman games to convince people through trickery and emotion.
The childish level of their behaviour and mentality.
The delusions of grandeur.
The veiled threats to everyone that isn't in their cult, "you'll be sorry one day"
The backbone of fear and paranoia.
The lack of a grasp on reality.
The constant lying and fabrications. (this one really bugs me)
They propose some of the most ridiculous nonsense i have ever heard.

I can go on and on...

This all looks to me like nothing more than religion repackaged and resold in the 21st century...

Yet they seriously think they can fool us all with these pathetic tactics...

[boloboffin]

Enough about "nano" being used as a crutch! How many times are we going to have to beat this into the ground?? Nanothermite is thermite, it's just been processed to a finer degree! Nothing - I say again, nothing - about processing changes the energetic property of the reactants!

Does "nano"wood ground to a sandlike state have any more joules/calories/BTU/whatever per gram than wood planks or logs? Does "nano"gasoline have any more heat per unit of mass because it's in smaller drops than gasoline in a cup? No! So why in God's name do we try to handwave the energy differences away with that stupid, ridiculous "It's nanothermite" argument?

Once again: The energy available in a ferrous-oxide/aluminum reduction-oxidation reaction is the same regardless of how fine the individual reactants are ground! What about the fact that this mysterious "nano" property is supposed to change the basic energy available in the redox reaction? And what about the fact that it's some "nano" material is supposed to change the activation energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activation_energy)? Does anyone here advocating this paper even know what "activation energy (http://www.docbrown.info/page03/3_51energy.htm#3)" is without clicking on either of these links??

Waving the prefix "nano" around like a talisman does not hide the fact that the substance Jones et. al. has tested is not thermite. It's not "nano" thermite, it's not "super" thermite. He's not seeing a rust-aluminum redox reaction! That's basic! When a liquid freezes at some different temperature than 32oF (0oC), do we try to pass it off as "super-water"? Or do we do reach basic intelligent conclusion and realize we're not dealing with water??

Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT!

It's more like comparing apples and applesauce.

[Sunstealer]

I suggest you write a peer reviewed rebuttal to this paper, something nobody on earth has done even with the "14 points" paper.

Until then, this verbal jabbering is simply that, an excercise in gill plate flapping that has zero scientific merit.Dodge noted.

I see that the time between my post and your response was 5 minutes. Did you actually manage to open the document and read the entire thing in 5 minutes? You did eh? But you couldn't find the answer to my question could you?

Nope like the dog your are to Jones the master, you can't even be bothered to actually read his paper you just spout regurgitated nonsense.

I'll spell it out for you and any other brain dead moron why it is important to have the information that I ask for.

Jones claims they tested paint in order to rule out paint as a source for the chips. He does not state what paint he is comparing the chips to, so without that information his test is void.

There is absolutely no way in a million years I or any other person producing a legitimate paper would ever get away with that colossal mistake before the paper was published. It would be spotted because there should be a reference (that's those little number superscript numbers and corresponding references at the end of the paper) to either a data table and or manufacturers information sheet.

It's plainly obvious that people like roundhead and other truthers have very little experience with scientific papers or what is required when writing one. At the moment we don't need a peer review rebuttal - there are so many elementary mistakes in the paper that it's going to take alot of time to correlate them all.

Instead of being such a puppet why don't you actually bother to go back to the start of this thread and read the posts (not the bickering) that point out some of these errors which are backed up by alternate sources?

[beachnut]

I suggest you write a peer reviewed rebuttal to this paper, something nobody on earth has done even with the "14 points" paper.

Until then, this verbal jabbering is simply that, an excercise in gill plate flapping that has zero scientific merit.

Jones debunks himself; if only you could read and understand the paper.

Prior to soaking the chip in MEK an XEDS spectrum was acquired from an area of the red-layer surface. The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sulfur, zinc, chromium and potassium. The occurrence of these elements could be attributed to surface contamination due to the fact that the analysis was performed on the as-collected surface of the red layer. The large Ca and S peaks may be due to contamination with gypsum from the pulverized wallboard material in the buildings.

[ConspiracyKiller]

Interesting - we also know that rusting is an exothermic reaction (that truthers means it gives off heat) and therefore is an increase in energy. They observed a matrix of a Carbon based material (most likely some form of binder) in the SEM photos and EDS. Could this also ignite?

It appears that Dr. Greening is of the impression that the XEDS spectrum in Figure 14 "Is" from material also containing primer paint but is clearly quite different to the material that gave the Figure 6 and 7 spectra.

TAM has made some good points in regard to the amounts of zinc. So I'm curious as to how Dr. Greening is sure there is a deference, is he basing his opinion on just the zinc or is there any thing else that stands out in http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf that I'm missing.

For example do the Flash, boiling, or explosive properties listed in the MSDS tell us anything new?

In your opinion do you, after seeing the MSDS for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer, think the red/gray chips are paint or is it some other material?

Sorry for all the questions and thanks for your time/sharing you expertise.

[RedIbis]

Dodge noted.

I see that the time between my post and your response was 5 minutes. Did you actually manage to open the document and read the entire thing in 5 minutes? You did eh? But you couldn't find the answer to my question could you?

Nope like the dog your are to Jones the master, you can't even be bothered to actually read his paper you just spout regurgitated nonsense.

I'll spell it out for you and any other brain dead moron why it is important to have the information that I ask for.

Jones claims they tested paint in order to rule out paint as a source for the chips. He does not state what paint he is comparing the chips to, so without that information his test is void.

There is absolutely no way in a million years I or any other person producing a legitimate paper would ever get away with that colossal mistake before the paper was published. It would be spotted because there should be a reference (that's those little number superscript numbers and corresponding references at the end of the paper) to either a data table and or manufacturers information sheet.

It's plainly obvious that people like roundhead and other truthers have very little experience with scientific papers or what is required when writing one. At the moment we don't need a peer review rebuttal - there are so many elementary mistakes in the paper that it's going to take alot of time to correlate them all.

Instead of being such a puppet why don't you actually bother to go back to the start of this thread and read the posts (not the bickering) that point out some of these errors which are backed up by alternate sources?

For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.

[16.5]

For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.

well Red, he is fairly frustrated with the fact that just about every truther under the sun has coming crawling back from what ever rock they were hiding under to spout off nonsense about something that not only do they not understand, they have not bothered to even read the thread.

Hey Red, where does Jones say what type of paint he tested, and more importantly, where are the results from 2007???

Jones is leading you sheep right into a buzzsaw.

[Sunstealer]

Hey Swing, let me let you in on a little tip, in "science" you don't necessarily have to repeat a test! You can take the data that the proponent of a theory publishes, and analyze that data, and using that same data, point out where they have gone wrong. Exactly.

Why are truthers so stupid and assume the only way you can refute something is to do your own tests. The great thing about this paper is the data that is clearly displayed on public view. They will no doubt have other spectra and photos, but ofcourse there is limited space for a paper.

If people actually bothered to look at Fig 2 with an objective mind and if they actually knew what thermite was "nano" or not they would know that the two do not correlate. They would also note the scale in the bottom right hand corner and work out approximate thickness's. The mind might start to work and throw up the anomaly: how can approximately 20 microns of thermite melt steel 5000 times it's own thickness (for a 5mm thick)

I know it's hard because everyone has problems with scale when looking at SEM images - it's hard to get it into your head exactly how small things are when magnified 50,000 times.

Here is a mm to micron (µm) converter. Play around with it to see just how big these sample thickness's are compared with the macro world.

http://www.convertunits.com/from/mm/to/micron

[Sunstealer]

For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.Yep, me too, but there comes a point when my patience limit is reached. And roundhead's complete dishonesty and clear refusal to read the paper was it.

[alienentity]

For a moment I thought you were going to be above this type of rhetoric.

Fair point. Red, what do you think of the validity of Jones' hypothesis?

Do you think it's plausible that a 20 micron thick coating of a material with less energy density than wallpaper could destroy structural steel?

I don't see how. Maybe you guys know something....

[T.A.M.]

SO it took another paper by Jones, the first bit of joy the truther have had in a year or more, to bring Swing out of the shadows.

All the more sweet when Jones is proven to be wrong, and a charlatan, and an incredibly poor (or at least extremely bias to the point of making him behave poorly) scientist.

TAM:)

[alienentity]

RedIbis, can you explain to me how red chips were discovered in 100% of the four samples Jones had in 2007?

[The Platypus]

As i'm sure many of us know, Stephen Jones is the same guy that also wrote: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"

I take it since Jones is so infallible and his credibility is (trying to hold a straight face) unquestionable, that these works of his, in which he claims to have archeological evidence of Jesus visiting the Americas, are also quite popular and accepted completely by the "truthers"?

How many of them accept that? But they are on a quest for "the truth"?

Ya... sure...

[RedIbis]

Yep, me too, but there comes a point when my patience limit is reached. And roundhead's complete dishonesty and clear refusal to read the paper was it.

Don't let that bother you too much. There are people on both sides of this debate who haven't read the paper. Like I said earlier, I think you're asking important questions, just try to take some of the vinegar out of your posts.

[GregoryUrich]

Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605

He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion.

So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really).

It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor.

[Lenbrazil]

They do obey the standards of peer review. You just make a bogus claim with no evidence.

It is the NIST reports om the WTC that are not peer reviewed. They do not make their computer models public, so it would be impossible to peer review them even if someone wanted to.

Galileo since you aren't a native speaker your reading comprehension erroe was understandable. I don't believe Bentham ever published anything by a Nobel laureate, they only claim to be ENDORSED by 7 of them. Most of those endorsements were for traditional journals put out by Bentham which don't charge authors for publication. IIRC 1 or 2 were for the concept of open publishing but didn't mention the company by name, this didn't stop them from counting them as endorsements.

As for NIST's models as has been explained more than once they only run on super computors not PC's or even Macs IIRC they have offer to make the models available to people with the requisite computing capacity.

Their report wasn't peer reviewed because it wasn't a journal article, Several articles supporting the collapse theory have been published in ESTABLISHED scientific journals that DON'T charge their authors fees.

[T.A.M.]

So what we have are:

7-8 year old samples, with no valid chain of custody, and no details about their storage over those 8 years.

Chips found within those samples that produce a spectral pattern that could easily be in keeping with any number of paints.

Chips found that look remarkably like paint chips from the tnemec primer used on the beams of the WTC.

Heat testing done on the samples, and one type of paint, for which no details are given in terms of the type, chemical make up, etc...

And from this, this testing with a horrible lack of control testing, a horrible lack of evidence detail in terms of chain of custody and storage, we are suppose take the results as what???? interesting? ok.

I tell you what I see. I see a man pushing himself as a quality scientist, who along with the others "scientists" he has dragged along, went looking for a particular chemical, and ignored, or made a minimal effort to investigate, all other possibilities.

That is BAD SCIENCE 101.

TAM:)

[alienentity]

Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605

He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion.

So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really).

It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor.


Mr. Urich, Dr. Jones has stated publicly that the towers fell too quickly to be simple gravitational collapse, so it would have required doping the whole structure with thermite paint, by implication.

He argued this point in a debate with Leslie Robertson, after Robertson stated his opinion that, as soon as the collapse began, nothing could have stopped it from continuing all the way down.
Jones vehemently disagreed arguing that the collapse may actually have stopped if not for the further removal of structure.

Jones may change his tune of course.

[ElMondoHummus]

Don't you know it's a proven scientific fact that nanothermite ignites at 430c?

That's the difference!

The jets were used to ignite the thermite paint, which then quickly burned right through the buildings down to the ground. You can see the nanosmoke pouring out all the way down.

That's why the towers collapsed almost instantly after the plane impacts, and faster than freefall speed.

:lolsign:

Yeah... I'm going to go out and buy some nanochicken. That way, I won't have to heat my oven so high to cook it. ;):D

[GregoryUrich]

Mr. Urich, Dr. Jones has stated publicly that the towers fell too quickly to be simple gravitational collapse, so it would have required doping the whole structure with thermite paint, by implication.

He argued this point in a debate with Leslie Robertson, after Robertson stated his opinion that, as soon as the collapse began, nothing could have stopped it from continuing all the way down.
Jones vehemently disagreed arguing that the collapse may actually have stopped if not for the further removal of structure.

Jones may change his tune of course.

Doubt it.

[RedIbis]

Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605

He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion.

So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really).

It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor.

That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?

[alienentity]

Here's a link to the Jones/Robertson debate. If memory serves I believe Dr. Jones alleges a 10 second collapse time for one of the towers. I was very surprised at his lack of awareness of basic facts, as he is supposed to be a scientist.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

[T.A.M.]

I see Dr. Greening is also reading the forum, and despite his dislike of most of us, he has taken some of our criticisms to heart, and emailed S. Jones with some questions around it.

Here is what I would like to know, and if anyone can get this to Dr. Greening, or if someone can answer it here, i would like to know....

In many of the "Red Chip" Spectra, there is no Zinc or Chromium spikes. Is there an explanation for this, if we assume that the chips are those of primer paint. In other words, could a reaction (physical or chemical) have taken place either during the explosion, or due to exposure to the elements or improper storage of the samples, that might have caused the removal of the Zinc and Chromium?

Thanks

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?

I agree this part of the discussion is interesting, which is why I asked my question about the Zinc absence in the other Spectra, and whether or not any physical or chemical reactions in the 8 years since the samples came about, may have caused the absence of the Zinc (and Chromium).

TAM:)

[A W Smith]

reading Gregory's post im sure jonesie getting hot under the collar. He may have to loosen up that tie.


So
Hey Jonesie!!

Name one steel framed hi rise that globally collapsed by being heated to 8 deg. C over room temperature! Just one! C'mon Jonesie you can do it!

[GregoryUrich]

I see Dr. Greening is also reading the forum, and despite his dislike of most of us, he has taken some of our criticisms to heart, and emailed S. Jones with some questions around it.

Here is what I would like to know, and if anyone can get this to Dr. Greening, or if someone can answer it here, i would like to know....

In many of the "Red Chip" Spectra, there is no Zinc or Chromium spikes. Is there an explanation for this, if we assume that the chips are those of primer paint. In other words, could a reaction (physical or chemical) have taken place either during the explosion, or due to exposure to the elements or improper storage of the samples, that might have caused the removal of the Zinc and Chromium?

Thanks

TAM:)

TAM, your welcome to join us at the911forum so you could ask him directly.

[RedIbis]

This:
so it would have required doping the whole structure with thermite paint.


Is not the same as this:
the further removal of structure.

[nicepants]

You are arguing from authority, not from science. Did you not learn your Galileo when you were young?

The NIST report does indeed have many qualified scientists. But their report has not been peer reviewed by referees, nor have they released their computer models, so it is impossible at this time to subject them to peer review.

Is it customary for NIST to subject all of its publications to the peer review process? What about the process of producing this report was inadequate due to the fact that it was not peer-reviewed in a scientific journal? (Other than the fact that responses & criticisms would be limited to a select group of scientists, rather than being open to anyone who wished to respond)

the NIST report is just that, a government report, nothing more.

The government paid for it, but it was not produced solely by the government.


Also, NIST is suspected in the 9/11 cover-up. Real science regarding 9/11 should not be left to the very people who are suspected.

Suspected by whom? You? Other truthers?

Using your logic we should also reject the findings of Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, CIT, etc because they are suspected of using 9/11 conspiracy theories for personal gain.

If not NIST, who should the science be left to?


many people wrote rebuttals to the NIST report, and they allowed only a very short window to accept such rebuttals, once the report was made public.

Do you feel that the time window for rebuttals was inadequate?

Lets see if anybody on the planet scientifically rebutts this nano thermite paper.I would think people would be crawling out of the woodwork to do so.

Why? What will happen if they don't?

[T.A.M.]

My reading of spectral output is ancient, to the point where basically I have forgotten how to do so.

Is it possible that the Sodium (Na) peaks are Zinc Peaks, given they occur at almost identical placed on the spectra (around the 1 keV)?

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?

Yes, that is my understanding.

[T.A.M.]

TAM, your welcome to join us at the911forum so you could ask him directly.

Who runs the forum? If they are part of the truth movement, I will decline. My personal information only goes to those I trust. Thanks for the invite.

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2605Just had a quick look at that, they pick up on the magnetic issue too. I'm also intrigued by the 6th post down

3. The XEDS spectra for the gray layers of your samples, (shown in Figure 6 of your paper), exhibit a small peak at ~ 5.9 keV which indicates the presence of Mn. The height of this peak relative to the Fe peak at 6.4 keV shows that the Mn is about 1 % the abundance of the Fe. This surely suggests that A-36 steel is the most likely source of Fe in the gray layers of the chips, since A-36 steel contains about 1 % Mn. This is inconsistent with your proposed origin of the chips.

Makes that layer more consistent with

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

The small peak is only visible in samples a,b and d. Is this statistically significant amongst the background? Did the equipment not label this peak? Did they look closer at it or not notice? I myself thought it was part of the "noise". It's not in the microsphere Fig 21 so that would suggest ruling out the "gray layer" as a source.

[ElMondoHummus]

Just had a quick look at that, they pick up on the magnetic issue too. I'm also intrigued by the 6th post down



Makes that layer more consistent with

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Separated-At-Birth.jpg

The small peak is only visible in samples a,b and d. Is this statistically significant amongst the background? Did the equipment not label this peak? Did they look closer at it or not notice? I myself thought it was part of the "noise". It's not in the microsphere Fig 21 so that would suggest ruling out the "gray layer" as a source.

That is some mileage you're getting out of that picture, man. :D

I should download and save it for myself. In case this paper gets evangelized somewhere else...

[RedIbis]

I agree this part of the discussion is interesting, which is why I asked my question about the Zinc absence in the other Spectra, and whether or not any physical or chemical reactions in the 8 years since the samples came about, may have caused the absence of the Zinc (and Chromium).

TAM:)

Yeah, I think you're asking fair questions. Although I don't know if you want to join that discussion, it's a real vicious snakepit over there.

If I used smilies I'd post the one that shakes his head back and forth to indicate the opposite.

[T.A.M.]

Sunstealer, given their proximity on the spectral outputs, is it possible the Na Peaks are in fact Zn Peaks?

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?Well this is something that struck me as odd when comparing EDS data - Figs 7, 14 don't tally thus suggesting different materials.

Why does all of the paint have to be of the exact same composition and from a single manufacture? It wouldn't be beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that samples in Jones' paper are more than one type of paint. Surely if this material were thermite then the composition would be common across all spectra?

[Sunstealer]

That is some mileage you're getting out of that picture, man. :D

I should download and save it for myself. In case this paper gets evangelized somewhere else...I know it's lovely and I'm grateful it was made. A picture paints a thousand words.

[metamars]

High energy release per unit mass suggests that the chips don't contain the oxygen needed for combustion, because that tends to limit the energy density.


Don't you have this backwards?


Higher energy release per unit mass than TNT suggests that the material isn't thermite.


Figure 1, page 9, in MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION clearly shows that "traditional" (be which I assume he means non-nano-themite) Al/Fe2O3 thermite reactions release both more heat per unit mass, as well as more heat per unit volume, then either HMX, RDX, or TNT.


Again, this has been corrected several times in this thread. The energy density of "super thermite" is exactly the same as that of the same thermite composition with a greater particle size.


Wrong, again. See figure 7.3, p. 114, in Grainier's thesis, COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES (http://esr.lib.ttu.edu/bitstream/handle/2346/956/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1), for Al/MoO3 thermite. The difference isn't even 1 order of magnitude, but it's not close to "exactly the same", either. Apparently, you're thinking of perfect reactions.



The only difference in "super thermite" is that the energy is released faster, but that isn't what Jones is testing. Therefore, higher energy density argues against "super thermite" to exactly the same degree that it argues against thermite. This is basic chemistry.


Well, what do you have to say, now?

[T.A.M.]

Well this is something that struck me as odd when comparing EDS data - Figs 7, 14 don't tally thus suggesting different materials.

Why does all of the paint have to be of the exact same composition and from a single manufacture? It wouldn't be beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that samples in Jones' paper are more than one type of paint. Surely if this material were thermite then the composition would be common across all spectra?

So in the end, the results are FAR from conclusive, wrt to the existence of "superthermite" in the dust. It could very easily be Primer paint(s).

Can you tell me, if the Na peaks are close enough to the Zn peaks to be mistaken in some of the other spectra, or are their locations, while close to one another, close enough to say they are in fact Na and Zn as given in the paper?

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

Who runs the forum? If they are part of the truth movement, I will decline. My personal information only goes to those I trust. Thanks for the invite.

TAM:)

the911forum is neutral. I'm the owner and only admin/moderator. If you use an anonymous e-mail account, the only thing to identify you is your IP number.

[T.A.M.]

the911forum is neutral. I'm the owner and only admin/moderator. If you use an anonymous e-mail account, the only thing to identify you is your IP number.

I will take it under advisement. It does seem to be a bit more civil over there. I may just lurk for now, and join later. Not sure I have much to add.

TAM:)

[GregoryUrich]

Just had a quick look at that, they pick up on the magnetic issue too. I'm also intrigued by the 6th post down

...

The small peak is only visible in samples a,b and d. Is this statistically significant amongst the background? Did the equipment not label this peak? Did they look closer at it or not notice? I myself thought it was part of the "noise". It's not in the microsphere Fig 21 so that would suggest ruling out the "gray layer" as a source.

I don't get the magnetic issue. I thought there was elemental Al in the sample. Al is paramagnetic.

[GregoryUrich]

Here's a link to the Jones/Robertson debate. If memory serves I believe Dr. Jones alleges a 10 second collapse time for one of the towers. I was very surprised at his lack of awareness of basic facts, as he is supposed to be a scientist.

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

I doubt he will change his tune. I have discussed just that issue with him on the STJ911 forum. I pointed out that the times given by NIST were for the first heavy debris to hit the ground. It can be seen in the videos that nearly half the building was standing at that point. A more realistic time for WTC1 is 14-15 seconds as even Jim Hoffman has concluded. I wrote a paper on the implications (or rather lack thereof) of the fall times, but The Journal of 9/11 Studies wouldn't consider it and told me to try elsewhere.

[phunk]

Don't you have this backwards?


Nope. If the oxidizer is included in the mass, that means there's less room for the combustable material. If it burns using atmospheric oxygen, then the whole mass can be the combustible.

[RedIbis]

So in the end, the results are FAR from conclusive, wrt to the existence of "superthermite" in the dust. It could very easily be Primer paint(s).



Not all of the samples, just those that exhibit the presence of zinc.

[Galileo]

Galileo since you aren't a native speaker your reading comprehension erroe was understandable. I don't believe Bentham ever published anything by a Nobel laureate, they only claim to be ENDORSED by 7 of them. Most of those endorsements were for traditional journals put out by Bentham which don't charge authors for publication. IIRC 1 or 2 were for the concept of open publishing but didn't mention the company by name, this didn't stop them from counting them as endorsements.

As for NIST's models as has been explained more than once they only run on super computors not PC's or even Macs IIRC they have offer to make the models available to people with the requisite computing capacity.

Their report wasn't peer reviewed because it wasn't a journal article, Several articles supporting the collapse theory have been published in ESTABLISHED scientific journals that DON'T charge their authors fees.

Are you a socialist? You have a problem with a small fee being paid.

[T.A.M.]

Not all of the samples, just those that exhibit the presence of zinc.

No, that is not true unless you can prove that other paints that may have been used in the WTC would not have presented similar spectrums to those in Jones paper. Jone paper has to prove that the spectra and other data prove that THE ONLY thing in that pile that could have produced such data, was superthermite. he has not.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

1. Yes there is a problem with "Pay to play" techniques, such as those used by Bentham.
2. They also used viral emailing techniques to obtain their "editors" for their "journals". This involved some cases where people who were educated in TOTALLY UNRELATED FIELDS were offered editorships. Offering a PhD in English a position as an editor on the board for "Astrophysics" for a hypothetical example...

TAM:)

[roundhead]

Correct me if i am wrong, but does part of that "fee" have to do with the lenght of the paper, and the included photos?

Not that it matters, but i think Ryan said some journals limit the size of a paper, so not all journals can be approached simply because of size and other limitations.

[alienentity]

This:

Is not the same as this:

Hi Red,

I had a quick listen while I was working out. Here's the quote:

about 16:40 into the mp3 'whereas the buldings collapsed in about 10 seconds...
The only way then to achieve this rapid and complete fall , and symetrical as well, is through the use of explosives to move the mass out of the way'

On Robertson's prodding he also agreed that it would have to be every 2 or 3 floors throughout the building.'

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/StevenJones_LeslieRobertson_20061026.mp3

[T.A.M.]

You honestly want to know what Bentham is up to, start with these links...

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0604&L=CHMINF-L&P=R10547&I=-3

For starters...

much more info, here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489&page=8

TAM:)

[Sunstealer]

So in the end, the results are FAR from conclusive, wrt to the existence of "superthermite" in the dust. It could very easily be Primer paint(s).

Can you tell me, if the Na peaks are close enough to the Zn peaks to be mistaken in some of the other spectra, or are their locations, while close to one another, close enough to say they are in fact Na and Zn as given in the paper?

TAM:)Yes it could very well be Zn. Usually Na and Zn are marked on the printout on the same peak (CuLα peak is just under 1KeV too). There are corresponding peaks around 8.6-7 and 9.6 for Zn too.

In Fig 14 the 1 KeV peak is labelled as Zn and has a corresponding 8.7 peak. It may well be that because of the absence of the later peak that the 1KeV peak is labelled Na in all the other spectra.

You'll note that in the majority of spectra that label the 1KeV peak as Na there is also a K (Potassium) peak at @ 3.3KeV - Figs 7c, 11, (it's not labelled in 14 but looks like it's there), and 24.

Not sure what to make of that.

Either way I've no idea why you'd want either in thermite!

Edited to add:


Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust

Mineral material

Mineral material includes all particles that generally occur as rock-forming minerals. The primary components in this group include quartz (SiO2), feldspars ((Ca,Na,K)1(Si,Al)4O8), micas (including vermiculite), talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2), calcite (CaCO3), dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2), sulfide minerals, barite (BaSO4), and others. Quartz is distinguished from other Si-rich phases, such as glass shards, based on the absence of other trace to minor elements such as Na, K, and Al. Compare Si-03 and Si-01, respectively.http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#heading09

[metamars]

Which agrees with what everyone except the truthers are saying, that it releases the same amount of energy, except it does it faster. This is high school chemistry, it's not hard to understand.

Just curious, but did you and Dave go to the same high school (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4599311&postcount=974)?

[Galileo]

More bad news for the JREFers. Another famous authority figure has endorsed the findings of the International Team of Experts:

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

READ THE REST, AND FOREVER REST YOUR PEACE!

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51

[Pardalis]

HeHe.........

Exactly, what we have on here are armchair quarterbacks that havent conducted scientific experiments on the dust, as these credentialed professionals have, and that being the case, they are slumped in their seats way out on center field in the boo bird section.

Until i see this study scientifically refuted, i have no reason to believe its findings arent accurate.

Neither does anybody else on the planet with more than one brain cell

Let's see how this paper resonates in the scientific community...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/tumbleweed.gifhttp://http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/indifferent/indifferent0008.gif (http://www.thescubasite.com/Scuba-Diving-in-Egypt/scuba-diving-in-egypt)

[Sunstealer]

I don't get the magnetic issue. I thought there was elemental Al in the sample. Al is paramagnetic.Well I think that the elemental Al issue is still up for debate - They only say that they picked a region of the sample for the EDS and don't give and exact area nor the corresponding SEM photo. It might sound a bit picky, but i'd like conformation.

Isn't paramagnetism only present in a magnetic field? The material doesn't exhibit magnetic properties outside of the field. I'm just trying to see if it might explain why the elemental aluminium concentrated during the 55 hours in MEK with agitation.

[lapman]

More bad news for the JREFers. Another famous authority figure has endorsed the findings of the International Team of Experts:

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

READ THE REST, AND FOREVER REST YOUR PEACE!

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51
Wow, a twoofer site touts a worthless vanity journal article. Big deal. The paper's been torn apart here and elsewhere.

[roundhead]

You honestly want to know what Bentham is up to, start with these links...

http://gunther-eysenbach.blogspot.com/2008/03/black-sheep-among-open-access-journals.html

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0804/msg00027.html

https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind0604&L=CHMINF-L&P=R10547&I=-3

For starters...

much more info, here

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489&page=8

TAM:)

I could really care less what they are up to. I want to see the paper scientifically debunked, or not debunked. If it stands unrebutted scientifically, its extremely important work.

[Pardalis]

Wow, a twoofer site touts a worthless vanity journal article. Big deal. The paper's been torn apart here and elsewhere.

He's just repeating the same links over and over again, as if it'll make it true.

[roundhead]

Let's see how this paper resonates in the scientific community...

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a154/perdalis/tumbleweed.gifhttp://http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/indifferent/indifferent0008.gif (http://www.thescubasite.com/Scuba-Diving-in-Egypt/scuba-diving-in-egypt)

I suspect it will remain unrebutted.

[Pardalis]

I suspect it will remain unrebutted.

Assuming that's the case, and assuming it hasn't been debunked already in this thread, what will happen then?

[Galileo]

Wow, a twoofer site touts a worthless vanity journal article. Big deal. The paper's been torn apart here and elsewhere.

dude, this is a science forum. There is no such word as "twoofer" in science. The paper is being supported by other experts, contrary to your false assertions. Show me a qualified scientist who have published an article that tears apart the paper. If you can't that makes you a liar as well.

[mark4mark]

More bad news for the JREFers. Another famous authority figure has endorsed the findings of the International Team of Experts:

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor



http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51

What do you expect from a pig but a grunt?

[boloboffin]

More bad news for the JREFers. Another famous authority figure has endorsed the findings of the International Team of Experts:

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

READ THE REST, AND FOREVER REST YOUR PEACE!

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51

AE911Truth is one of the organizations behind the paper, Galileo. They're listed on the front page.

Famous Authority Figure Endorses Own Paper