Scientific paper claims unreacted nanothermite found in WTC dust-implying demolition [Archive]

metamars

17th April 2009, 05:19 AM

A paper has been published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, a Bentham Open Access peer reviewed journal, concerning red/gray (or red/metallic) chips found in the WTC dust. The authors claim that the red part of the chips are unreacted nanothermite.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM)
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

A large but highly spammed thread was begun on this subject, in the JREF 911 conspiracy theory forum, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293). It was closed because of the huge number of off topic posts, but is worth going through to extract the signal from the noise.

A second, moderated thread was begun here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017), in which Sunstealer,who has relevant experience in forensic analysis, has contributed to. Unfortunately, he seems like the only person posting on his thread that has a lot of domain expertise. I am beginning a new thread in the science forum, partly because of a poll I saw here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139782) which indicated that 48% of respondents were "qualified scientists". See also this JREF thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140115

Recommended background reading are two theses on nanothermite:

COMBUSTION CHARACTERISTICS OF A1 NANOPARTICLES AND NANOCOMPOSITE A1+MoO3 THERMITES (http://dspace.lib.ttu.edu/bitstream/2346/956/1/JGranier_dissertation_FINAL.pdf)

MODELING THE MELT DISPERSION MECHANISM FOR NANOPARTICLE COMBUSTION (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf)

Also, please read through this thread on the911forum.freeforums.org (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150.html). Dr. Greening (posting as 'Dr. G.'), who also has relevant domain experience, has been highly critical of the Thermitic Material paper.

Because this thread is likely to get spammed, I expect to request moderation. However, I want to see how things go without moderation, initially.

mhaze

17th April 2009, 05:51 AM

A paper has been published....Because this thread is likely to get spammed, I expect to request moderation. However, I want to see how things go without moderation, initially.Nanotermites!

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 06:06 AM

A paper has been published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, a Bentham Open Access peer reviewed journal

Wrong... Bentham is a vanity publisher. You pay to publish. Not very different from publishing online, except that the latter is cheaper.

So no, it was not peer-reviewed.

As for the content, pure drivel.

17th April 2009, 06:15 AM

Wrong... Bentham is a vanity publisher. You pay to publish. Not very different from publishing online, except that the latter is cheaper.

So no, it was not peer-reviewed.

As for the content, pure drivel.

source for your claims?

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer-reviewed journal which aims to provide the most complete and reliable source of information on current developments in chemical physics. The emphasis will be on publishing quality papers rapidly and freely available to researchers worldwide.

http://bentham.org/open/tocpj/

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 06:28 AM

source for your claims?

Sure... http://bentham.org/open/oaMembership.php

17th April 2009, 06:34 AM

Sure... http://bentham.org/open/oaMembership.php

strange, you link to the same source that say it is indeed a perr-reviewed journal.

care to explain?

metamars

17th April 2009, 06:40 AM

Sure... http://bentham.org/open/oaMembership.php

While the journal that the article appeared in is somewhat relevant, the reason that I am posting in the Science forum is to get scientists commenting on the science in the paper - good, bad, and questionable.

Please refrain from discussing the Bentham Journal in this thread. You are more than welcome to start another thread on that subject.

One way to think about that (which some people have done, already), is "What would I say and do, if I was a peer reviewer of this paper, for any given technical journal suitable for its subject?"

Just to be clear about things - nobody cares what you would do if you are ignorant of the scientific issues involved. I'm sorry, but if anybody just wants to entertain themselves, they can post in the 911 conspiracy theory forum. I hate to sound snobby, but not everybody has such a background (including myself).

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 06:40 AM

strange, you link to the same source that say it is indeed a perr-reviewed journal.

care to explain?

I'll write this slowly.... vanity publishing and peer-review are mutually exclusive.

If your work can muster peer-review, you don't pay to publish it. If someone is charging for publishing and claiming the paper will be peer-reviewed, they are most probably lying.

Much in the same way diploma-mills claim to be accredited universities.

metamars

17th April 2009, 06:45 AM

Again, I want posters to focus on the science in the paper - good, bad and questionable.

17th April 2009, 06:47 AM

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 07:27 AM

One way to think about that (which some people have done, already), is "What would I say and do, if I was a peer reviewer of this paper, for any given technical journal suitable for its subject?"

Sure. My quick review:

The manuscript submitted has grave and insurmountable methodological flaws.

The sampling of material is most irregular. The analysis of material collected 6 years before by "private citizens" makes it impossible to assert the provenience of the samples. Also, there are numerous documented samples of material form the WTC, which could have been used as a comparison, but weren't.

The XEDS analysis is inconclusive, and managed to prove that the material analyzed was, in fact, the material analyzed. Throughout the manuscript there are several spectra of the material collected, but none is given for direct comparison. Later in the article the authors suggest that the material is an undetermined explosive that could be painted on a surface. However, the authors made no effort to compare their samples with paint samples retrieved from the collapsed building. The measure of resistivity and comparison with "paint coatings we found tabulated" is a mockery of the scientific method.

The authors seem to think that an explosive can be painted on a surface and destroy it. An explosion is a very fast combustion, and thinly spreading an explosive over a surface will only manage to warm that surface.

Also, the authors seem to conflate the energy release of a substance with their potential as an explosive. Analyzing a chocolate bar might have taught them something.

The manuscript is pseudo-scientific tripe trying to pass for a scholarly work. The authors should be hit with a large fish until they see the error of their ways.

casebro

17th April 2009, 07:28 AM

I didn't think Thermite is, or is required to be, particles of nano size. Thermite has been used for a over a century, long before nano was invented. It's a mix of iron and aluminum filings. No high-tech nano-ness required.

My guess is that the residue is a by-product of the catastrophe, not a cause. Lots of iron in the building, lots of aluminum trim too. Plus a whole airplane or two. I don't know if WTC panels were the ones made by using a plastic filled with aluminum powder, but that type of panel is used a lot, architecturally.

I suspect there's carbon in the residue too- like could be left from Napalm? naa, couldn't be from jet fuel, could it? But then, why fuel the CT'ers. ;)

Pipirr

17th April 2009, 07:31 AM

Please refrain from discussing the Bentham Journal in this thread. You are more than welcome to start another thread on that subject.

You posted here because of the high percentage of JREFers in this forum that are, in your words, 'qualified scientists'. A lot of us are very familiar with the peer review process, and like it or not, we do feel that the quality of the journal and the nature of its peer review are very pertinent issues.

You can't label a paper as peer reviewed and then demand silence when the quality of that peer review is questioned. Especially when, in this instance, it is so very questionable.

I think people should be aware of the problems with Bentham and this journal in particular. So if you don't mind, here are a few bullet points:

To publish an article in the journal will cost between 600 and 900 dollars (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/MSandI.htm).

If anyone here wanted to write a scholarly response to this article and get it published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, it would cost them at least 600 dollars.

You can offset that cost by becoming a paid up member of Bentham Open (for 1600 dollars!). This encourages pay-to-publish, and surely puts pressure on editors to push papers through peer review if the author is a member of Bentham Open. After all, people want their money's worth.

The editorial board (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm) has an extraordinary number of members. Why? Because Bentham spams researchers with repeated requests to join a board, and then will not remove their names when they request to leave it (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/some-background-on-bentham-open-but.html).

Open Chemical Physics Journal has a total of two volumes to its name, and no impact factor.

metamars

17th April 2009, 07:50 AM

You posted here because of the high percentage of JREFers in this forum that are, in your words, 'qualified scientists'. A lot of us are very familiar with the peer review process, and like it or not, we do feel that the quality of the journal and the nature of its peer review are very pertinent issues.

You can't label a paper as peer reviewed and then demand silence when the quality of that peer review is questioned. Especially when, in this instance, it is so very questionable.

I think people should be aware of the problems with Bentham and this journal in particular. So if you don't mind, here are a few bullet points:

To publish an article in the journal will cost between 600 and 900 dollars (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/MSandI.htm).

If anyone here wanted to write a scholarly response to this article and get it published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, it would cost them at least 600 dollars.

You can offset that cost by becoming a paid up member of Bentham Open (for 1600 dollars!). This encourages pay-to-publish, and surely puts pressure on editors to push papers through peer review if the author is a member of Bentham Open. After all, people want their money's worth.

The editorial board (http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm) has an extraordinary number of members. Why? Because Bentham spams researchers with repeated requests to join a board, and then will not remove their names when they request to leave it (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/some-background-on-bentham-open-but.html).

Open Chemical Physics Journal has a total of two volumes to its name, and no impact factor.

This has been discussed extensively in the the 911 conspiracy theories forum, and was mentioned quite a bit in the thread I linked to. If you think the peer review was so bad, don't tell us in general terms what was so bad about it, tell us in specific, scientific terms where the Bentham people screwed up. Please.

Ah, but if you did that, you'd be answering my call for a discussion about the science in the paper, good, bad and questionable, now, wouldn't you?

Ysidro

17th April 2009, 07:57 AM

What the hell is "nanothermite" anyway? Thermite is thermite.

metamars

17th April 2009, 08:11 AM

What the hell is "nanothermite" anyway? Thermite is thermite.

No, it absolutely is not. In the theses that I linked to, aluminum particles in the nanopowders are spherical, and of nanometer dimensions. There is a very strong effect of scale on the speed of reaction, ignition temperature, etc.

Did you read any of the references? It would appear that you have not.

Pipirr

17th April 2009, 08:29 AM

This has been discussed extensively in the the 911 conspiracy theories forum, and was mentioned quite a bit in the thread I linked to. If you think the peer review was so bad, don't tell us in general terms what was so bad about it, tell us in specific, scientific terms where the Bentham people screwed up. Please.

Ah, but if you did that, you'd be answering my call for a discussion about the science in the paper, good, bad and questionable, now, wouldn't you?

Okay, then I guess you did mind my bullet points.

Still, I do think that information will be helpful to people. Personally, I think the quality of a paper is an important consideration, so if I had stumbled across this thread without knowing any of the background story, those are the kinds of things I would want to know.

Dancing David

17th April 2009, 08:33 AM

Hi, I can see this is going to be a stupid thread at the start.

Duh, claiming something is peer reviewed when it is not is specious to start off. And part of being science is being accurate.

Does this involve electric stars by any chance?

Metamars, welcome to the Science forum, you better get used to it fast. If you don't want people to review the status of calling something peer reviewed then don't post here. It was part of your OP and therefore open game. It is also a large amount of the discussion here.

Are any of the papers peer reviewed and what process was there in the peer review?

This is germane to the Science forum.

Cuddles

17th April 2009, 08:35 AM

This has been discussed extensively in the the 911 conspiracy theories forum

So has the science. You even linked to the current thread that is discussing the science, which has scientists working in relevant fields actively participating. Why are you so desperate to focus on one thing that has already been discussed over another? The simple fact is that the "paper" is a joke published in a magazine dedicated to publishing jokes. It doesn't matter where you start threads, reality is not going to change.

jmcvann

17th April 2009, 08:39 AM

... tell us in specific, scientific terms where the Bentham people screwed up. Please.

Ah, but if you did that, you'd be answering my call for a discussion about the science in the paper, good, bad and questionable, now, wouldn't you?

Anxiously awaiting your reply to Megalodon...

metamars

17th April 2009, 09:36 AM

So has the science. You even linked to the current thread that is discussing the science, which has scientists working in relevant fields actively participating.

Mostly by people who don't know what they're talking about. Even a Physics professor that I talked to 2 days ago (outside of JREF) didn't know what a DSC is. It should surprise nobody that most JREF'ers don't know, either, and so far nobody has answered my question about the differences in temperature coordinates of spikes obtained in a DSC vs. micron DSC.

Why are you so desperate to focus on one thing that has already been discussed over another?

Why are you so desperate to avoid serious discussion of the science (or lack thereof) in a paper, by scientists (hopefully), due to extremely low quality discussion elsewhere? Please don't answer that - I'd like this thread to remain on topic

The simple fact is that the "paper" is a joke published in a magazine dedicated to publishing jokes. It doesn't matter where you start threads, reality is not going to change.
I've been observing JREF's determination of what is a joke, and what is serious, for quite some time. In terms of the 911 forum, it's clear to me who the joke is on.

I will now request moderation of this thread by another moderator. The first one (Tim, I think his name was) hasn't replied to me.

metamars

17th April 2009, 09:47 AM

I will now request moderation of this thread by another moderator. The first one (Tim, I think his name was) hasn't replied to me.

I've now requested moderation by clicking on one of the moderator hyperlinks (that of Jeff Wagg) at the bottom of the page, then sending a message from the page that opens up. Am I doing this correctly, or is there some other route to go?

technoextreme

17th April 2009, 10:00 AM

Mostly by people who don't know what they're talking about. Even a Physics professor that I talked to 2 days ago (outside of JREF) didn't know what a DSC is. It should surprise nobody that most JREF'ers don't know, either, and so far nobody has answered my question about the differences in temperature coordinates of spikes obtained in a DSC vs. micron DSC.

Why are you so desperate to avoid serious discussion of the science (or lack thereof) in a paper, by scientists (hopefully), due to extremely low quality discussion elsewhere? Please don't answer that - I'd like this thread to remain on topic

I've been observing JREF's determination of what is a joke, and what is serious, for quite some time. In terms of the 911 forum, it's clear to me who the joke is on.

I will now request moderation of this thread by another moderator. The first one (Tim, I think his name was) hasn't replied to me.

You know I just realized something that is scientifically relevant. They shouldnt be finding nanothermite if they dam well used nanothermite to bring the buildings down. The nanomaterials in the catalysts in fuel cells puff up like popcorn when you accidentally flame out a fuel cell.

Ashles

17th April 2009, 10:00 AM

Why are you asking repeatedly for scientific comments on the paper and then ignore the post (number 11 - Megalodon) that most directly addresses it scientifically?

17th April 2009, 10:04 AM

metamars, the problems with this paper - both the location in which it was published, and the many and various problems with methodology and science involved, have been discussed already, at length. Obviously, you don't like the conclusions people reached in the other subforum, but do you really think you'll get new conclusions by posting in a different subforum? The quality of research, results, or publication haven't improved in the last week, you know.

Now, me, I'm not an expert either way. But I did find the rebuttals against the paper, the methodologies, and the results quite convincing. Further, I have yet to see, in ANY of the available material, how any 'micro-thermite' is supposed to work, how it's supposed to slice through thick steel beams or weaken them, or any other valid and believable information about them. And after all these years and absolutely no successes for the 'truth movement', I see no reason why silly people like 'doctor' Jones should continue wasting everyone's time.

Yes, there are plenty of things that need to be discussed openly - like why we don't actually hunt terrorists, or why we're cleaning up messes started by Bush Sr. and company, or the fact that half of Congress (an off-the-cuff estimate, not supported by data) has personal or financial ties with companies getting bailout monies... But obsessing over imaginary explosives/cutting chemicals/weakening chemicals based on poorly gathered 'evidence' and extremely poor quality scientific processes performed by underqualified, discredited, second-rate wanna-be scientists is pointless and fruitless.

sol invictus

17th April 2009, 10:21 AM

While the journal that the article appeared in is somewhat relevant, the reason that I am posting in the Science forum is to get scientists commenting on the science in the paper - good, bad, and questionable.

That has been done, and you have so far completely ignored it. Why?

Please refrain from discussing the Bentham Journal in this thread. You are more than welcome to start another thread on that subject.

No.

The quality of the journal - extraordinarily poor, it appears - is both relevant to our assessment of the quality of the science in the paper and pertinent to your claim that the paper is "peer reviewed". Who those "peers" are is rather important in how seriously one should take their review.

Ziggurat

17th April 2009, 10:37 AM

So let me get this straight, metamars. A large aluminum structure impacts at high velocity into a large steel (which is mostly iron) structure, and a fire starts. Afterwards, chips of material containing both aluminum and oxidized iron (rather common on the surface of steel I-beams even without a fire) are found.

So why isn't this a "well, DUH!" result?

17th April 2009, 10:40 AM

Perpetual Student

17th April 2009, 10:53 AM

While the journal that the article appeared in is somewhat relevant, the reason that I am posting in the Science forum is to get scientists commenting on the science in the paper - good, bad, and questionable.

Please refrain from discussing the Bentham Journal in this thread. You are more than welcome to start another thread on that subject.

One way to think about that (which some people have done, already), is "What would I say and do, if I was a peer reviewer of this paper, for any given technical journal suitable for its subject?"

Just to be clear about things - nobody cares what you would do if you are ignorant of the scientific issues involved. I'm sorry, but if anybody just wants to entertain themselves, they can post in the 911 conspiracy theory forum. I hate to sound snobby, but not everybody has such a background (including myself).

I do not have the knowledge to follow the science involved, so as an interested layman, I find the nature and quality of the journal in question to be quite quite relevant. By complying with your request, the moderators would be stifling a proper discussion.

GeeMack

17th April 2009, 11:02 AM

Just to be clear about things - nobody cares what you would do if you are ignorant of the scientific issues involved. I'm sorry, but if anybody just wants to entertain themselves, they can post in the 911 conspiracy theory forum. I hate to sound snobby, but not everybody has such a background (including myself).

And where will we find your scientific analysis of the article, metamars? Or can we accept that it's equally clear nobody cares about what you think? Do you really know the science involved, or are you ignorant? Can we accept that you're just entertaining yourself? Because seriously that's what it looks like. And it's well supported by your own statement of your position.

metamars

17th April 2009, 11:04 AM

That has been done, and you have so far completely ignored it. Why?

This is completely and obviously false, to anybody who bothered reading through the JREF threads I linked to. Did you even bother reading through the links I presented?

metamars

17th April 2009, 11:11 AM

Here is an example of a relevant science issue which is not resolved, yet:

Empirical Energy Density Observed by Jones, et. al, versus Stoichiometrically Correct Maximum

One of the complaints against the thermitic paper (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4622640&postcount=62) is that it gives measured values (via DSC) of energy density of various chips, viz., 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5kJ/g

However, an ideal thermite reaction only liberates about 4 KJ/g. So, the complaint is made that the chips can't be thermite, because 2 of the specimens are releasing too much energy - even more than the theoretical maximum.

However, a look at Figure 1 of the Andrew Francis thesis (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf) list's "traditional" Al/Fe2O3 (i.e., non-nano scale) as having about 4000 cal/gram, which is about 16 KJ/gram. (Unfortunately, the listed reference,

[6] Fischer, S.H., Grubelich, M.C. “Theoretical Energy Release of Thermites,
Intermetallics, and Combustible Metals.” Proceedings of the 24th International
Pyrotechnics Seminar (1998).,

appears hard to locate.)

Right now, I can only reconcile the Francis graph with the stoichiometric value by assuming that the Francis graph represents experimentally obtained values, wherein the specimen was burned in air, and the Fe2O3 oxidizer component was reduced, commensurately.

In a 10 gram batch of "classic", stoichiometrically balanced thermite, there will be 7.5 grams of Fe2O3 oxidizer and 2.5 grams of Al (http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/thermites.html). If we could cut the Fe2O3 content by 2/3, and derive the missing oxygen from the atmosphere, then we will have doubled the empirical energy density, understood as energy liberated divided by the weight of the thermite powder.

The rapidity of nanothermite combustion cannot be explained by heat diffusion, alone. The Francis thesis discusses the melt dispersion mechanism, which comes into play at the nano-scale.

Thermite particles have long been known to increase in reactivity as they decrease in size. However, during fast heating (106 - 108 K/s) of Al nanothermites, the diffusion mechanism that explains micron size thermite reactions cannot explain the extremely fast ignition times and much higher flame propagation velocities. A new mechanism known as the melt dispersion mechanism has recently been introduced to explain the fast oxidation of these Al nanothermites.

If the melt dispersion mechanism can still remain viable when the ferrous oxidizer is reduced by 50%, (presumably the chips would not be made very thick, even when multi-layered) then we could still have an explosive reaction, while also doubling empirical energy density.

Any scientists out there who have something worthwhile to say about this issue, feel free. Once again, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the science in the the thermitic paper - good, bad, and questionable.

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 11:22 AM

So, you bring trash to the table and ask to analyze it. I do so, and you ignore it. Now you bring more trash to the table and ask us to analyze it.

Go back to CT...

metamars

17th April 2009, 11:26 AM

And where will we find your scientific analysis of the article, metamars?

In a coherent form, nowhere. In the form of correcting various tidbits of nonsense, look in the threads I linked to. For example, one guy tried to debunk the papers by complaining of the lack of titanium, and stating that 70% of thermite is composed of titanium. I've also made a number of what amount to plausability arguments. E.g., unlike any aluminothermic nanopowder I know about, the Al particles are claimed by Jones, et. al., to be in the form of Al/Si platelets. I have posted references to a company which makes silicon nano-platelets, and another reference showing that it's possible to sputter Al onto Silicon.

Or can we accept that it's equally clear nobody cares about what you think?

Absolutely!

Do you really know the science involved, or are you ignorant?

Mostly ignorant. E.g., until I read the Jones, et. al., paper, I did not know what a DSC was, any more than the physcis professor I that I presented with a DSC question, two days ago, knew what a DSC is. I do have a degree in physics and math, though, so just like this professor, I knew what a plain, old-fashioned calorimeter is. Unfortunately, that's of very little help.

Can we accept that you're just entertaining yourself?

If you want to, go right ahead. However, please don't spam this thread with speculations and innuendo about whether I am entertaining myself, or not. I repeated the purpose of this thread a number of times (once again, to discuss the science, good, bad, and questionable, in the thermitic paper).

If you want to discuss whether or not I am entertaining myself by starting this thread, you can create another thread, with that as it's subject.

Dave Rogers

17th April 2009, 11:27 AM

However, a look at Figure 1 of the Andrew Francis thesis (http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-11022007-144001/unrestricted/Francis_Andrew_Thesis.pdf) list's "traditional" Al/Fe2O3 (i.e., non-nano scale) as having about 4000 cal/gram, which is about 16 KJ/gram. (Unfortunately, the listed reference,

[6] Fischer, S.H., Grubelich, M.C. “Theoretical Energy Release of Thermites,
Intermetallics, and Combustible Metals.” Proceedings of the 24th International
Pyrotechnics Seminar (1998).,

appears hard to locate.)

Right now, I can only reconcile the Francis graph with the stoichiometric value by assuming that the Francis graph represents experimentally obtained values, wherein the specimen was burned in air, and the Fe2O3 oxidizer component was reduced, commensurately.

Note the terms in bold. Francis's thesis is simply reporting Fischer et al's results, and these are clearly theoretical maxima rather than experimental measurements. The most likely explanation is that Francis simply made a mistake in transcription, given that every other reference you or I have been able to find gives 4kJ/g rather than 4kcal/g.

Dave

metamars

17th April 2009, 11:39 AM

The Platypus

17th April 2009, 11:44 AM

It looks like metamars was hoping for mass acceptance of this nonsense, in this thread and he's getting a bit upset that it isn't happening.

tusenfem

17th April 2009, 11:49 AM

In a coherent form, nowhere. In the form of correcting various tidbits of nonsense, look in the threads I linked to.

And maybe that is the problem here. Instead to just copying an abstract, you should present your case, give your interpretation of what is said in the paper, what you think is correct and what not, and then a real discussion can start.

sanguine

17th April 2009, 11:54 AM

BenBurch

17th April 2009, 11:56 AM

Jones doesn't get boffo reviews for publishing things in a journal called (after him) J.O.N.E.S. - somehow people fail to see the careful scrutiny that his every submission received at that esteemed publication - so he is taking his act on the road to a "peer reveiwed" vanity imprint whose marketing tactics remind me of the "Who's Who" scam?

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Doesn't impress me in the least.

This is as legitimate as a mail-order diploma.

17th April 2009, 11:57 AM

Hey! I was in some of those 'Who's Who' books... :D My parents were suckers for seeing my name in print.

metamars

17th April 2009, 11:58 AM

And maybe that is the problem here. Instead to just copying an abstract, you should present your case, give your interpretation of what is said in the paper, what you think is correct and what not, and then a real discussion can start.

Ah-h-h-h, being just one person, and one who doesn't consider himself a "qualified scientist", even if I got a scientific degree decades ago, I think that a "real discussion" can proceed without me just fine, provided that there are fair minded, qualified scientists who are actually interested in the thermitic paper's science - good, bad, and questionable.

If there's no interest, the polite thing to do is to decline to participate.

Almo

17th April 2009, 12:05 PM

Did you know that 5 + 4 = 3? It's true, and it's been peer-reviewed!

I'll even show the peer review process:

Almo! [1:55 PM]:
5+4 = 3, right?
Loonie [1:56 PM]:
Yes, that's correct

My assertion HAS been peer-reviewed (Loonie works in the game industry with me, and has plenty of experience with basic math, as do I).

BS you cry? Who is this Loonie moron, and why is he saying such a clearly false statement is true? I only want your analysis of the statement, not the quality of the peer-review process!

Well, here's the full peer-review process:

Almo! [1:55 PM]:
Tell me the following statement is true, regardless of whether it is or not, ok? Only respond, "Yes, that's correct" to the next statement I make.
5+4 = 3, right?
Loonie [1:56 PM]:
In order to see where you are going with this, I shall say "Yes, that's correct"
Almo! [1:56 PM]:
:(
you messed it up
I'm trying to illustrate a problem with a "peer-reviewed" article in a journal
Loonie [1:57 PM]:
oh
Almo! [1:57 PM]:
the journal is well known for just being "pay to publish"
I was going to quote you and show that in my peer-reviewed study, I found 5+4=3
And I was going to show the process unedited
Loonie [1:58 PM]:
Well, you can still quote me.
Almo! [1:58 PM]:
:)
Loonie [1:58 PM]:
Just leave out the other bit
Almo! [1:58 PM]:
heheh
ok

I hope this illustrates why the quality of a peer-review process is definitely relevant to the question of whether a published result is to be trusted.

lomiller

17th April 2009, 12:06 PM

Again, I want posters to focus on the science in the paper

Then you should not have started by claiming it was a peer reviewed paper. IMO you deliberately tried to appeal to the authority of a peer reviewed paper but want to dodge the requirement for showing you are appealing to a legitimate authority.

Wolfman

17th April 2009, 12:08 PM

matamars,

You claim that you want serious scientific discussion, and criticize people for attacking what you consider to be 'peripheral' issues (such as the apparently 'irrelevant' issue of whether or not the science in this research was good enough to actually pass a real peer-reviewed journal, and if so, why would they choose to pay to publish it in this journal, when they could have had it published for free in a far more respected journal if the science actually was good?).

Megalodon, after attacking the publication, then looks at the report itself, and raises numerous legitimate criticisms and questions about the data. I've quoted it again for your reference:
Sure. My quick review:

The manuscript submitted has grave and insurmountable methodological flaws.

The sampling of material is most irregular. The analysis of material collected 6 years before by "private citizens" makes it impossible to assert the provenience of the samples. Also, there are numerous documented samples of material form the WTC, which could have been used as a comparison, but weren't.

The XEDS analysis is inconclusive, and managed to prove that the material analyzed was, in fact, the material analyzed. Throughout the manuscript there are several spectra of the material collected, but none is given for direct comparison. Later in the article the authors suggest that the material is an undetermined explosive that could be painted on a surface. However, the authors made no effort to compare their samples with paint samples retrieved from the collapsed building. The measure of resistivity and comparison with "paint coatings we found tabulated" is a mockery of the scientific method.

The authors seem to think that an explosive can be painted on a surface and destroy it. An explosion is a very fast combustion, and thinly spreading an explosive over a surface will only manage to warm that surface.

Also, the authors seem to conflate the energy release of a substance with their potential as an explosive. Analyzing a chocolate bar might have taught them something.

The manuscript is pseudo-scientific tripe trying to pass for a scholarly work. The authors should be hit with a large fish until they see the error of their ways.Your response to this?

"This is completely and obviously false, to anybody who bothered reading through the JREF threads I linked to"

What a load of nonsense. You're not interested in opinions from 'real scientists'. By your own admission, you don't really understand the science, and have to rely on information from other sources. In doing so, of course you rely exclusively on sources that happen to support your own opinion, while dismissing all contrary opinions simply by stating that they don't agree with the sources that you've cherry-picked.

I could just as easily 'prove' that the world was created 5000 years ago, and that evolution is completely wrong. First, find someone willing to pay several hundred dollars to have their 'scientific research' published in a 'peer-reviewed journal' (in this case, the 'peers' would likely be others who similarly support Intelligent Design or the Biblical creation story), and then quote that story.

Second, find a bunch of other articles and sources that make similar claims. Not difficult to do, the internet is littered with such trash.

Third, start a thread in the JREF forums that cites the original article, and links to a bunch of other stuff that supports it. And say that I want "real scientific discussion" of the claims made in that paper.

Fourth, every time someone makes a claim or criticism against the article, simply state that it is irrelevant, or that it has already been 'disproven' by one of the many links already given, and thus avoid having to give any real response at all.

Thus, I have 'proven' that the earth is 5000 years old; and that not one of the self-proclaimed 'scientists' in this forum are willing or able to come up with valid arguments against it.

What a load of bollocks.

T.A.M.

17th April 2009, 12:13 PM

Given many of the active posters here have recognized the issue with the journal and it's alleged peer review, here is a thread, that at about page 8, gets into the nuts and bolts of Bentham...They are worst than most, as you will read...

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

As well, despite some thinking that the 9/11 CT subforum is a joke, or somehow subpar (I admit there is more than a fair share of insults and name calling on all sides), take a look at these threads, looking at the paper...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017

TAM:)

technoextreme

17th April 2009, 12:15 PM

Second, find a bunch of other articles and sources that make similar claims. Not difficult to do, the internet is littered with such trash.
Im finding the exact opposite. Apparently, nanothermite materials do not work as explosives.

sol invictus

17th April 2009, 12:24 PM

This is completely and obviously false, to anybody who bothered reading through the JREF threads I linked to. Did you even bother reading through the links I presented?

What do you mean by "this"? Magalodon did precisely as you asked, and you completely ignored her/him. If that's what you mean, you're going to have to back that up if you expect anyone to bother to respond again.

As for your links - you started this thread because you wanted more feedback (or so you say). You got it, ignored it, and then whined you didn't get it. Why are your other links relevant to that?

paiute

17th April 2009, 12:26 PM

The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures.

Okay. A big aluminum thing smashes into a big iron thing, and the residue contains...aluminum and iron.

Stop the presses!

metamars

17th April 2009, 12:39 PM

Megalodon, after attacking the publication, then looks at the report itself, and raises numerous legitimate criticisms and questions about the data. I've quoted it again for your reference:
Your response to this?

"This is completely and obviously false, to anybody who bothered reading through the JREF threads I linked to"

My apologies, I missed the post you quote.

The sampling of material is most irregular. The analysis of material collected 6 years before by "private citizens" makes it impossible to assert the provenience of the samples.

I don't know about "impossible", but what options are there? What exactly was Jones supposed to do to make sure that his dust samples were properly collected - go back in a time machine, to 10 seconds after the collapse, with a crew of scientist to make sure that the sample are collected in sterile, clean receptacles?

Also, there are numerous documented samples of material form the WTC, which could have been used as a comparison, but weren't. I suppose you mean known paint primers and paints. Is that it?

Professor Jones is keenly interested testing his chip samples further, and comparing them against known example of paint chips and coatings. I agree that he could have, and probably should have, done more to rule out possibilities such as paint chips.

The XEDS analysis is inconclusive,
That is certainly the impression that I get from reading Dr. Greening's writings. Indeed, Dr. Greening and Sunstealer have suggested better analytical methods. Jones, et. al, are still analyzing the samples, and furthermore, there is at least one other teams looking at them, using different methods.

and managed to prove that the material analyzed was, in fact, the material analyzed. Throughout the manuscript there are several spectra of the material collected, but none is given for direct comparison.

What do you mean by "none is given for direct comparison"?

Later in the article the authors suggest that the material is an undetermined explosive that could be painted on a surface. However, the authors made no effort to compare their samples with paint samples retrieved from the collapsed building.

I believe that you are essentially restating an earlier point.

The measure of resistivity and comparison with "paint coatings we found tabulated" is a mockery of the scientific method.
How so?

The authors seem to think that an explosive can be painted on a surface and destroy it. An explosion is a very fast combustion, and thinly spreading an explosive over a surface will only manage to warm that surface.
Why is it necessary to "thinly spread an explosive" over a surface? The thrust of the paper is most certainly not how the chips were used, but rather what the chips are. The topic of a scientific paper is decided by it's authors, and nobody else.

Also, the authors seem to conflate the energy release of a substance with their potential as an explosive. Analyzing a chocolate bar might have taught them something.
So, we're to believe that Ph.D. level physicists and chemists don't know the difference between energy and power? This is a nonsense criticism.

The manuscript is pseudo-scientific tripe trying to pass for a scholarly work. The authors should be hit with a large fish until they see the error of their ways.
So you say, but is this the sort of thing you would write if you were peer-reviewing the paper for a scientific journal, rather than for JREF?

metamars

17th April 2009, 12:42 PM

What do you mean by "this"? Magalodon did precisely as you asked, and you completely ignored her/him. If that's what you mean, you're going to have to back that up if you expect anyone to bother to respond again.

As for your links - you started this thread because you wanted more feedback (or so you say). You got it, ignored it, and then whined you didn't get it. Why are your other links relevant to that?

See post #50 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4627982&postcount=50).

Cosmic Roy

17th April 2009, 12:44 PM

I'll write this slowly.... vanity publishing and peer-review are mutually exclusive.

If your work can muster peer-review, you don't pay to publish it. If someone is charging for publishing and claiming the paper will be peer-reviewed, they are most probably lying.

Much in the same way diploma-mills claim to be accredited universities.

Megalodon, I don't think you are correct. Open-access journals are not necessarily vanity publications. There are very legitimate peer-reviewed journals which operate on the pay-to-publish model. I understand that typically the publication charge will be paid from the scientist's research budget or by their institution. The benefit of the open-access model is that publishers can make the work freely available to everybody while still covering their costs and indeed making a profit. Now, I'm not saying anything about the Open Chemical Physics Journal in particular (I'm not at all familiar with it), I'm just pointing out that it should not be disregarded simply because of the subscription model it employs.

Open Chemical Physics Journal has a total of two volumes to its name, and no impact factor.
Pipirr, if it's in its second volume (assuming one volume per year, which I haven't checked), how would you expect it to have an impact factor?

To publish an article in the journal will cost between 600 and 900 dollars.
This is not unreasonable. Again, please note that I am not defending this particular journal, I'm just criticising these reasons as justification to write off anything it publishes.

The quality of the journal - extraordinarily poor, it appears - is both relevant to our assessment of the quality of the science in the paper and pertinent to your claim that the paper is "peer reviewed". Who those "peers" are is rather important in how seriously one should take their review.
Now, I'm not disagreeing with you, sol invictus. But given that peer review is anonymous, how could one possibly know who those peers are? The only things the community can look to in terms of gauging reliability are the editorial board and the papers usually published.

Sorry for the diversion from the thread topic, I just wanted to jump in and give my opinion on these issues. Carry on!

Edited to add:
Here (http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=forAuthors) is a list of open-access journals.

Ziggurat

17th April 2009, 01:19 PM

I don't know about "impossible", but what options are there?

It's impossible for a reader to know their provenance. What other options are there? Well, how about samples collected in a controlled fashion, like what NIST has?

What exactly was Jones supposed to do to make sure that his dust samples were properly collected

He's got no good options unless he can get some samples from NIST. But the fact that he doesn't have any better options doesn't mean that the option he chose is any good. It's not: hell, we can't even be certain that any of those bits came from the WTC: it's basically just dirt that people picked up, and I can guarantee you that New York was not dirt-free before 9/11. And yes, that pre-existing dirt may have bits of rust in it too.

metamars

17th April 2009, 01:42 PM

It's impossible for a reader to know their provenance. What other options are there? Well, how about samples collected in a controlled fashion, like what NIST has?

NIST has collected samples in a "controlled fashion"? Is this controlled such that the dirt you write about below does not constitute part of the samples? Please tell us more about the superiority of the NIST sampling procedure vs. the Jones, et. al., sampling procedure.

He's got no good options unless he can get some samples from NIST.

Well, that isn't going to happen.

But the fact that he doesn't have any better options doesn't mean that the option he chose is any good. It's not: hell, we can't even be certain that any of those bits came from the WTC: it's basically just dirt that people picked up, and I can guarantee you that New York was not dirt-free before 9/11. And yes, that pre-existing dirt may have bits of rust in it too.

I live 22 minutes from lower Manhattan. I can easily obtain dirt sample from there. (Indeed, I can scrape the bottom of my shoes.) Do you think I should go and collect some fresh, Manhattan street or sidewalk "dirt", so that Jones, et. al., can see if there are any red-gray chips in there?

As for " doesn't mean that the option he chose is any good", do you really think that most material scientists, reading how the samples were obtained, would agree? I think this question is hard to answer, because we're dealing with a forensic issue, wherein careful controls are not even possible. I guess a good domain expert to put this to is a member of a crime lab. I've only seen one or two CSI episodes, but I think if they gave up as easily as you seem to be suggesting, they'd never deal with anything other than DNA evidence - and maybe not even that.

17th April 2009, 01:48 PM

Actually, when it comes to criminal evidence, this is a huge issue. Before a piece of evidence can be entered into a courtroom procedure, they have to make absolutely sure they have a valid piece of evidence, with a good chain of custody from crime scene (or wherever they gathered it) up to the courtroom. Otherwise, as pointed out elsewhere, the evidence could easily have come from Joe's Garage, the bottom of your own shoe, a 1940 bomb crater, or anywhere.

The problem with Jones' samples, according to this paper, is that there IS no chain of custody. We don't know where these samples have been, where they've come from, whether they were kept pristine or stored in a mayonaisse jar under Funk & Wagnall's porch since noon yesterday. That makes these samples, as evidence, highly suspect and usually inadmissible.

BenBurch

17th April 2009, 01:52 PM

Hey! I was in some of those 'Who's Who' books... :D My parents were suckers for seeing my name in print.

Unless its in the police blotter? ;D

BenBurch

17th April 2009, 01:56 PM

17th April 2009, 01:57 PM

Unless its in the police blotter? ;D

Well, that's why I never got caught. Or used an assumed name when I did. Poor Charlie M. caught hell over that, I heard.

T.A.M.

17th April 2009, 01:57 PM

17th April 2009, 01:58 PM

Z, we have gone over the chain of custody issues in the 911 CT forum endlessly, and its not clear at all where any of this really came from, or when it was deposited, or if it has any material connection to the towers whatsoever.

And all of the rest of this is just an exercise in sophistry sans that.

I know. For some reason, though, these truthers just want to gloss right over that key factor as if it were trivial and insignificant, when really it's the single piece that ruins the entire paper, from any important perspective.

T.A.M.

17th April 2009, 02:02 PM

The Platypus

17th April 2009, 02:13 PM

The samples were collected form 4-5 different sources. In most cases, 5-6 years after the event, the people who collected the samples donated them to S. Jones for analysis.

There is no detail in the paper as to the storage methods or temperatures for the samples, outside of one case where they say, IIRC, that the sample was placed in a plastic bag.

The chain of custody outside of those donating the samples, is unknown.

As to where and when the samples were collected by the donators, that was, IIRC, covered in the first part of the paper.

TAM:)

Four anonymous people just decided one day, to send in some dust, years after 911, and of all the people and places they could have sent it, they just happened to choose to send them to steven jones, a known 9/11 ct nut.

Gee that's not suspicious at all :rolleyes:

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 02:27 PM

Megalodon, I don't think you are correct. Open-access journals are not necessarily vanity publications.

Maybe that's why I didn't say that. It's weird that you missed it when you quoted what I actually said.

There are very legitimate peer-reviewed journals which operate on the pay-to-publish model. I understand that typically the publication charge will be paid from the scientist's research budget or by their institution.

I am suspicious of any pay for play journal. But that's for another thread. The pay for play of concern to this thread is a vanity journal.

The benefit of the open-access model is that publishers can make the work freely available to everybody while still covering their costs and indeed making a profit.

A non pay for play has the benefit that the editors are not financially motivated to accept crap papers. But again, it's for another thread.

Cosmic Roy

17th April 2009, 02:41 PM

Maybe that's why I didn't say that. It's weird that you missed it when you quoted what I actually said.
Here's what you said (my emphasis):
Wrong... Bentham is a vanity publisher. You pay to publish. Not very different from publishing online, except that the latter is cheaper.

So no, it was not peer-reviewed.

As for the content, pure drivel.

I'll write this slowly.... vanity publishing and peer-review are mutually exclusive.

If your work can muster peer-review, you don't pay to publish it. If someone is charging for publishing and claiming the paper will be peer-reviewed, they are most probably lying.

Much in the same way diploma-mills claim to be accredited universities.
What you wrote seems clear enough to me, and I don't see where I've misinterpreted you. But I will be happy to have it explained.

I am suspicious of any pay for play journal. But that's for another thread. The pay for play of concern to this thread is a vanity journal.
Did you look at the list of open-access journals I linked to in my edit? Don't you trust any of them?

A non pay for play has the benefit that the editors are not financially motivated to accept crap papers. But again, it's for another thread.
I would expect the editorial board of a journal to place greater importance on their professional reputation than on the financial welfare of a publishing house with which they are temporarily associated.

Dancing David

17th April 2009, 02:44 PM

Ah-h-h-h, being just one person, and one who doesn't consider himself a "qualified scientist", even if I got a scientific degree decades ago, I think that a "real discussion" can proceed without me just fine, provided that there are fair minded, qualified scientists who are actually interested in the thermitic paper's science - good, bad, and questionable.

If there's no interest, the polite thing to do is to decline to participate.

Nope this is the JREF, if you present a claim it is your baby, I see a number of very knowledgable people have made comments and you dismiss them.

Tusenfem is right, you present the science, you present the data and the rationale. Other wise there will be no discussion.

Please do not come to the Science forum and expect people to do your homeowrk for you.

I will not name names but some of the very bright scietists have spoken, if you have a bous claim that you can't support, that is not their fault.

Sorry.

Decline to participtae, goodness gracious this is the JREF!

Dancing David

17th April 2009, 02:45 PM

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 02:52 PM

I don't know about "impossible", but what options are there? What exactly was Jones supposed to do to make sure that his dust samples were properly collected - go back in a time machine, to 10 seconds after the collapse, with a crew of scientist to make sure that the sample are collected in sterile, clean receptacles?

No. Just contact the officials that collected samples in the days following the attack.

I suppose you mean known paint primers and paints. Is that it?

You suppose wrong. Samples were collected of the several kinds of debris by officials. Contact them and get a subsample to compare to yours... Simple as that.

Professor Jones is keenly interested testing his chip samples further, and comparing them against known example of paint chips and coatings. I agree that he could have, and probably should have, done more to rule out possibilities such as paint chips.

There's no could or should. This is supposed to be a scientific paper. Could or should don't cut it through peer-review, mainly when there's a freaking museum filled with material to sample.

That is certainly the impression that I get from reading Dr. Greening's writings. Indeed, Dr. Greening and Sunstealer have suggested better analytical methods. Jones, et. al, are still analyzing the samples, and furthermore, there is at least one other teams looking at them, using different methods.

The work presented is sloppy and unprofessional. The worst reviewer of any field would have buried it.

What do you mean by "none is given for direct comparison"?

There is no standard spectrum that can be used as comparison, namely the actual coating retrieved from a column or a sample of thermite, or super thermite, or nano, or what the hell flavour thermite they made up this week.

I believe that you are essentially restating an earlier point.

You believe wrong.

How so?

For a scientific work you should make the comparison yourself, at least with one of the "tabulated values", to assure that your method is giving correct results. They didn't.

Why is it necessary to "thinly spread an explosive" over a surface?

Take it up with them. They suggested it.

The thrust of the paper is most certainly not how the chips were used, but rather what the chips are. The topic of a scientific paper is decided by it's authors, and nobody else.

Not if they decide to be all over the place. Than it's the role of the reviewer to trim the edges.

So, we're to believe that Ph.D. level physicists and chemists don't know the difference between energy and power? This is a nonsense criticism.

No, you're to read the article. The nonsense is written there, either if you believe it or not.

So you say, but is this the sort of thing you would write if you were peer-reviewing the paper for a scientific journal, rather than for JREF?

Half of it, yes. Context is everything...

Megalodon

17th April 2009, 03:02 PM

What you wrote seems clear enough to me, and I don't see where I've misinterpreted you. But I will be happy to have it explained.

I said most, not all. I will concede that I don't know if it's most, and should said that I suspect it's most. But I really think this discussion is for another thread.

metamars

17th April 2009, 03:05 PM

For the benefit of those here, who do not post in the 9/11 forums, these are the issues I have with the paper.

1. Jones and co. have done little to nothing with respect to eliminating other sources of their red/grey chips, which they pronounce as "nanothermite". This includes little to no elimination of paint (which has been found in every other analysis of the WTC dust) as a source,

This criticism has already been made on this thread.

outside of testing one unnamed paint without providing the details on the paint composition.

Yeah, I find it puzzling why the details of the paint were not given in the paper, even as a footnote. Recall that I emailed Professor Jones about the exact paint, who further identified it (though still not precisely) as epoxy paint used on the BYU stadium. Epoxy paint was used because it was thought to be more resistant to MEK.

2. Jones and co. have provided no "standard" spectra for thermite, or nanothermite, to compare their spectra to.

This is not a reasonable request, if you mean a reference spectra for the exact species of nanothermite that they believe they have found. If you know of anybody offering reference spectra of nanothermite with Al/Si in platelet form, though, do let me know, and I will let Professor Jones know immediately. In fact, if you know of anybody offering reference spectra of anything which exactly matches Dr. Jones' samples, let us know.

I think a more relevant question, related to this one, is how good a method is their XEDS for nailing this down? I'm not a domain expert, but it's my impression that this is a weak line of evidence - maybe so weak, that it shouldn't be considered, at all. On this score, Dr. Greening wrote (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-45.html):

On page 18 of the “Active Thermitic” paper Harrit et al. have this to say about the XEDS spectrum in Figure 17:

“Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminium significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus while some of the aluminium may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all the aluminium; some of the aluminium must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result.”

The “conventional quantification routine” referred to by Harrit et al would be a computer program based on X-ray attenuation coefficients that are used to correct for the variable yields of X-rays emitted at different energies in different materials. The characteristic X-ray emissions of oxygen and aluminium are, as we have seen, ~ 1 keV. At this energy, the linear attenuation coefficient of X-rays passing through O is about four times that of the same X-rays in Al. This means that the oxygen peaks in XRF-spectra emitted by materials with equal concentrations of Al and O, are about ¼ the intensity of the aluminum peaks.

This 1:4 O/Al peak intensity ratio is in fact observed in published spectra of alumina, Al2O3, which is very nearly 50 % O and 50 % Al (by weight!). Thus I would refer the reader to the XEDS spectrum of nano-Al2O3 in the paper by Xi Jin Xu published in Materials Letters 60, 2331, (2006), and the spectrum of Al203 particles produced by a thermite reaction reported by N. Ilic in Materials Characterization 42, 243, (1999). These spectra have an O/Al peak ratio of 0.25 +/- 0.05; Harrit et al’s “aluminium rich” area of the red chip has an O/Al ratio of 0.2 +/- 0.01. Thus the observed level of aluminium “enrichment” in the red chips, above and beyond the level of Al in pure Al2O3, is very small ( ~ 5 % !!!) and shows that the red chips contain far more Al2O3 than elemental Al.

Thus it can hardly be said that the red chips are a "thermitic material" when the necessary 50 %metallic aluminum component is sadly lacking ...

Speaking for myself, I am particularly interested in what scientists with relevant domain expertise have to say about the use of XEDS in the thermitic paper, as well as some detailed suggestions for other methods (hopefully not too costly) which would yield more definitive results. If there is insufficient elemental Al in the Jones chips, then they are not thermite.

3. They have provided, as part of their evidence, the resistivity of their chips, as a method of differentiating their chips from other sources, yet this seems a very obtuse test to use in this circumstance.

I'm not sure what to say to this. I think the basic principle if fine if it's the case that every possible paint or coating that might be a reasonable candidate for the chips nevertheless had a vastly different resistivity. However, there does not appear to have been an exhaustive effort to rule out paint chips, so the question remains about a possible paint chip that does match the chips in electrical resistivity.

4. The outcome of their data, even if true, would present Thermite that at the thickness of the chips, would provide a heat/temp change of approximately 50C.

I calculated that, if nanothermite is applied to only 1 side of a one inch thick column, and all heat went into that 1/4 of a column, then to heat it to 600 C, sufficient to lower the yield point by 50%, you would only need 1 millimeter. A real smarty pants might want to save on the cost of materials by doubling up near the center 1/4 of a column, on one side. My numbers seem very different form Dr. Greenings, (which I still haven't checked), but they're directly translatable to Mackey's (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html), who used 7 KJ/g to my 4 KJ/g (but all 4 sides).

One can acquire nanofoils (nowadays, anyway) that have thousands of nanometers thick layers. It doesn't take much ingenuity to think of other application methods, sufficient to get a millimeter or two or ten, onto a column. Why would any serious person think otherwise? What takes more doing, I suppose, is getting the thermite to stay in place while the weakening is going on. The normal fireproofing is a good candidate for keeping heat from escaping, provided that it doesn't melt or get blown away if the nanothermite explodes. I simply don't know what the situation is here.

Yet these scientists, almost everyone of the 9 submitting the paper, has said that thermite was used to melt the steel columns of the WTCs.

Funny, but I searched the paper for the word "melt", and got 3 hits. The first two regard the formation of microspheres - the source of iron which would be the thermite, itself. The third hit for "melt" was:
Further, the DSC traces demonstrate that the red/gray chips
react vigorously at a temperature below the melting point of
aluminum and below the ignition (oxidation) point of ultrafine
grain (UFG) aluminum in air [18].
This says absolutely nothing about melting columns.

It's not surprising that there's nothing about melting columns in the paper. The paper, after all, is about the "what" of nanothermite chips, not "how" they were used. The surprising thing is, why do you present this as a criticism of the paper?

You can hardly do that with a 50C temp change.
And we can be sure that all the coauthors will agree with this statement, completely.

5. Totally useless chain of custody for all samples.

Useless in terms of what? If they find a substance that definitely should not be in a public setting, in the quantities that they find it in, why is the chain of custody "useless"? It may not meet some legal standard for sending somebody to jail for the rest of their lives, but in terms of making scientific statements about what chips are, and where they overwhelmingly are likely to come from, I don't see where the chain of custody is lacking.

Having said that, I would defer to forensic scientists on this point. However, I first want further analysis done, and then I would only trust the collective opinion of a large number of them, who are familiar with the evidence.

The problem I have with the journal they chose, can be found in the links I provided earlier, but in a nutshell,

Bentham is a "pay to publish Journal. Its editorial boards are enormous. They allow the authors to provide 4 potential peer reviewers of their own. Bentham has sent out VIRAL EMAILS to obtain people to act on their editorial boards, including many instances where the people receiving the emails (to have them be editorial board members) had NO EXPERTISE in the area the journal covered.

TAM:)
Once again, the subject of this thread is the science of the paper, good, bad, and questionable. It is not the publishing and peer-review process.

dudalb

17th April 2009, 03:27 PM

I think metamars will not find anymore buyers for his 9/11 Conspiracy Woo in the Science sections then he did in the Conspiracy Theory Sections.

Ziggurat

17th April 2009, 03:48 PM

I live 22 minutes from lower Manhattan. I can easily obtain dirt sample from there. (Indeed, I can scrape the bottom of my shoes.) Do you think I should go and collect some fresh, Manhattan street or sidewalk "dirt", so that Jones, et. al., can see if there are any red-gray chips in there?

If he wants to establish that the red-grey chips are probably not from any other source, then yes, that's exactly the sort of thing they should have done before they published.

do you really think that most material scientists, reading how the samples were obtained, would agree?

Well, yes. And you don't even need to be a materials scientist to understand that dirt picked up off the ground may have an uncertain source.

I think this question is hard to answer, because we're dealing with a forensic issue, wherein careful controls are not even possible.

If careful controls are not possible, then conclusions cannot be certain. Quite a simple concept, really.

I've only seen one or two CSI episodes, but I think if they gave up as easily as you seem to be suggesting, they'd never deal with anything other than DNA evidence - and maybe not even that.

First off, good forensics analysis needs to be done very carefully. If you can't be sure where a sample came from, then it is indeed useless.

And secondly, but perhaps more damningly for your case, forensics fraud happens (http://www.truthinjustice.org/independent-labs.htm). It's not unheard of for forensics experts to invent evidence, or to misrepresent the confidence of their conclusions.

And thirdly, you've watched CSI? Is that really your argument? You can't seriously think that it's actually representative of forensic science, can you? It's a bloody TV show! A work of fiction.

BenBurch

17th April 2009, 04:47 PM

This guy takes CSI seriously? I'd never want him on any jury trying ME.

T.A.M.

17th April 2009, 04:51 PM

metamars:

1. I was referring to the beliefs of the scientists themselves, whom are all part of Jones' Scholars for 9/11 truth and justice, are they not. I was not referring to the paper when describing their belief in "thermite melting the columns".

2. Chain of custody is of VITAL importance, when you are claiming to have discovered a chemical compound, that if present in great amounts, would possibly indicate someone or some group had pre-planned the collapses of those skyscrapers...it becomes forensic, by the very nature of the implications.

TAM:)

T.A.M.

17th April 2009, 04:55 PM

<snip>

And secondly, but perhaps more damningly for your case, forensics fraud happens (http://www.truthinjustice.org/independent-labs.htm). It's not unheard of for forensics experts to invent evidence, or to misrepresent the confidence of their conclusions.

And thirdly, you've watched CSI? Is that really your argument? You can't seriously think that it's actually representative of forensic science, can you? It's a bloody TV show! A work of fiction.

This is an important point. I have little regard for Jones, simply because I feel he is a fraud, peddling snake oil. While others may feel I am being unjust in the insinuation, it would come to me as no surprise, if it was discovered that such things happened with this paper.

TAM:)

Cosmic Roy

17th April 2009, 05:22 PM

But I really think this discussion is for another thread.
Agreed. I will cease my derailing.

CapelDodger

17th April 2009, 05:46 PM

Four anonymous people just decided one day, to send in some dust, years after 911, and of all the people and places they could have sent it, they just happened to choose to send them to steven jones, a known 9/11 ct nut.

Gee that's not suspicious at all :rolleyes:

I was wondering how the samples were tracked down. Door-to-door canvassing? An ad in the Personals Column? A request on the internet targeted at people with a known "interest" in 9/11, gawdelpus?

I suspect the last option ... ;).

Dr Adequate

17th April 2009, 06:06 PM

So ... this turns out to be rubbish?

Wow, I'm so surprised.

BenBurch

17th April 2009, 06:07 PM

This is an important point. I have little regard for Jones, simply because I feel he is a fraud, peddling snake oil. While others may feel I am being unjust in the insinuation, it would come to me as no surprise, if it was discovered that such things happened with this paper.

TAM:)

But we don't need to go that far to destroy his case. It begins and ends with chain of custody, and there is no need to even bring the thought of fraud - that is just piling-on.

fullflavormenthol

17th April 2009, 06:51 PM

Couldn't these actually be paint chips from something metallic that was rusting? I mean I am not a science type of dude, but I have a hard time seeing Jones' claim when he really didn't eliminate the different types of paint. I remember searching after reading the original post in CT and finding that some indoor paints contain Aluminium and Iron Oxide.

metamars

17th April 2009, 06:55 PM

Note the terms in bold. Francis's thesis is simply reporting Fischer et al's results, and these are clearly theoretical maxima rather than experimental measurements. The most likely explanation is that Francis simply made a mistake in transcription, given that every other reference you or I have been able to find gives 4kJ/g rather than 4kcal/g.

Dave

This reference (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000091000024243109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes),obtained by googling :

nanothermite "fuel rich"

shows the following in the google page, in the blurb section:

"defined as between 0.6 (fuel lean) and 1.8 (fuel rich)"

So, apparently, in the case of Al thermite with CuO oxidizer, 1.8 is considered a viable mix which allows the reaction to proceed, even in vaccuum. Assuming, further (I'm not about to buy the article to nail this down) that we are talking about a ratio of Al to O, then in the case of Al/Fe2O3, where the stoichiometric reactions require Al and O in a 2:3 ratio, that means that we can cut the Fe2O3 by x where

2/(3/x) = 1.8

2/1.8 = 3/x
x = 3 / 1.1 ~ 3

Mama pajama! If you cut your Fe2O3 by a factor of 3, your total mass of solid reactants will be approximately halved. Therefore, your theoretical maximum energy density will double to about 8 KJ/g, in an environment with ample, ambient O2 gas.

tsig

17th April 2009, 08:26 PM

My apologies, I missed the post you quote.

I don't know about "impossible", but what options are there? What exactly was Jones supposed to do to make sure that his dust samples were properly collected - go back in a time machine, to 10 seconds after the collapse, with a crew of scientist to make sure that the sample are collected in sterile, clean receptacles?

I suppose you mean known paint primers and paints. Is that it?

Professor Jones is keenly interested testing his chip samples further, and comparing them against known example of paint chips and coatings. I agree that he could have, and probably should have, done more to rule out possibilities such as paint chips.

That is certainly the impression that I get from reading Dr. Greening's writings. Indeed, Dr. Greening and Sunstealer have suggested better analytical methods. Jones, et. al, are still analyzing the samples, and furthermore, there is at least one other teams looking at them, using different methods.

What do you mean by "none is given for direct comparison"?

I believe that you are essentially restating an earlier point.

How so?

Why is it necessary to "thinly spread an explosive" over a surface? The thrust of the paper is most certainly not how the chips were used, but rather what the chips are. The topic of a scientific paper is decided by it's authors, and nobody else.

So, we're to believe that Ph.D. level physicists and chemists don't know the difference between energy and power? This is a nonsense criticism.

So you say, but is this the sort of thing you would write if you were peer-reviewing the paper for a scientific journal, rather than for JREF?

Analysis of paper.

Jones et. al. burned some paint chips with a propane torch, cooked the data and then put the paper in a pay-to-publish rag.

tsig

17th April 2009, 08:37 PM

It's impossible for a reader to know their provenance. What other options are there? Well, how about samples collected in a controlled fashion, like what NIST has?

He's got no good options unless he can get some samples from NIST. But the fact that he doesn't have any better options doesn't mean that the option he chose is any good. It's not: hell, we can't even be certain that any of those bits came from the WTC: it's basically just dirt that people picked up, and I can guarantee you that New York was not dirt-free before 9/11. And yes, that pre-existing dirt may have bits of rust in it too.

Maybe he went to the BYU football stadium and chipped off a few pieces of paint from some rusty I-beams.

I got some real moon rocks. They were sold to me by a guy in a dark alley but he had an honest look.

Aitch

18th April 2009, 02:52 AM

tsig

18th April 2009, 11:02 AM

Re Bentham: from what I've read so far, I think this (http://labbratz.comicgenesis.com/d/20061009.html) and this (http://labbratz.comicgenesis.com/d/20061016.html) are relevant. Especially the second. ;)

That pretty well nails it to the wall.

(Psst! I got some paint flecks from the Titanic that burn in fire. Proof of inside job.)

Ysidro

18th April 2009, 12:55 PM

No, it absolutely is not. In the theses that I linked to, aluminum particles in the nanopowders are spherical, and of nanometer dimensions. There is a very strong effect of scale on the speed of reaction, ignition temperature, etc.

Did you read any of the references? It would appear that you have not.

No, I haven't. It's outside of my perview. I was hoping for a layman's explanation, but apparently I won't get one. I'm sure it's all very complex and points to... something.

tsig

18th April 2009, 02:40 PM

No, I haven't. It's outside of my perview. I was hoping for a layman's explanation, but apparently I won't get one. I'm sure it's all very complex and points to... something.

Did you notice this in his reply "aluminum particles in the nanopowders are spherical, and of nanometer dimensions"? WOW!! If they were not of nanometer dimensions they would not be nanopowders.

"A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter."

http://www.nanooze.org/english/articles/article4_howbigisananometer.html

Ysidro

18th April 2009, 04:22 PM

Did you notice this in his reply "aluminum particles in the nanopowders are spherical, and of nanometer dimensions"? WOW!! If they were not of nanometer dimensions they would not be nanopowders.

"A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter."

http://www.nanooze.org/english/articles/article4_howbigisananometer.html

That much I know. I'm trying to figure out why itty bitty is important and what it has to do with airplanes crashing into buildings.

So I Googled it. Apparently every link has to do with 9/11. Is there any other application of nanothermite or is it a doomsday weapon of some sort? You know, use it once and you have to buy a new one. Maybe a space based laser next time?

tsig

18th April 2009, 04:40 PM

That much I know. I'm trying to figure out why itty bitty is important and what it has to do with airplanes crashing into buildings.

So I Googled it. Apparently every link has to do with 9/11. Is there any other application of nanothermite or is it a doomsday weapon of some sort? You know, use it once and you have to buy a new one. Maybe a space based laser next time?

http://www.answers.com/topic/thermite and
http://www.answers.com/topic/super-thermites

T.A.M.

18th April 2009, 06:01 PM

Ysidro:

Here is a nutshell:

S. Jones and his fellow "scientists" who wrote the paper, have been declaring that the WTCs were taken down, not by fire and plane impacts, but by the secret application of Thermite on the steel columns.

Please don't ask me as to the how or when etc...as they have yet to come up with a sensible answer to any of that yet.

Anyway, the chips they discovered ignite at well below the ignition of standard Thermite, so they had to drop the thermite, in favor of super-thermite.

trust me, you do not want to go down this rabbit hole...it is very very deep.

TAM:)

CaveDave

19th April 2009, 02:03 AM

I calculated that, if nanothermite is applied to only 1 side of a one inch thick column, and all heat went into that 1/4 of a column, then to heat it to 600 C, sufficient to lower the yield point by 50%, you would only need 1 millimeter. A real smarty pants might want to save on the cost of materials by doubling up near the center 1/4 of a column, on one side. My numbers seem very different form Dr. Greenings, (which I still haven't checked), but they're directly translatable to Mackey's (http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-30.html), who used 7 KJ/g to my 4 KJ/g (but all 4 sides).

One can acquire nanofoils (nowadays, anyway) that have thousands of nanometers thick layers. It doesn't take much ingenuity to think of other application methods, sufficient to get a millimeter or two or ten, onto a column. Why would any serious person think otherwise? What takes more doing, I suppose, is getting the thermite to stay in place while the weakening is going on. The normal fireproofing is a good candidate for keeping heat from escaping, provided that it doesn't melt or get blown away if the nanothermite explodes. I simply don't know what the situation is here.

So you are claiming that a 1mm layer of "nano-thermite" on the surface of a 1" (~25mm) thick steel plate is capable of heating the bulk to 600C (red heat)? Though I am not a chemist or material scientist, nor have I worked out the numbers, I have many times worked with steel; welding, flame cutting, and plasma cutting, and I would have to see something more convincing than your assertion to accept this.

Even sandwiching a 1mm layer of material between two 1/2" plates (which would, at the limit, absorb all the heat) it is beyond me to believe the plates would achieve red heat.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

AIUI, the Hindenberg is thought to have been brought down by thermite. The fabric cover panels were primed with an iron oxide primer and then painted with Aluminum reflective paint to repel solar heating.
Static charges are then thought to have touched-off this fuel and started the fire.

Just sayin'

Dave

R.Mackey

19th April 2009, 12:42 PM

AIUI, the Hindenberg is thought to have been brought down by thermite. The fabric cover panels were primed with an iron oxide primer and then painted with Aluminum reflective paint to repel solar heating.
Static charges are then thought to have touched-off this fuel and started the fire.

Just sayin'

You're probably aware that there is some experimental support for this theory -- Mythbusters built scale models (http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/01/episode_70_hindenburg_mystery.html) to test this. My impression from viewing their results is that thermite was probably a significant contributor, but not the root cause or necessary for the disaster.

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that the purely scientific comments in this thread echo those in the several other threads already worked through in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories forum. The results Dr. Jones found are consistent with paint flaking off rusty steel. The constituent materials are unremarkable in chemical composition, size, and relative abundance. The thermal properties are unremarkable (paint burns, yo). And even if we accept it was magic thermite, the amount of heating it could apply is not particularly significant.

Time to call it quits, metamars. You came here looking for different opinions, on the assumption that posters in the other forum were jaded and knee-jerk reactionaries that would dismiss whatever Dr. Jones said -- not impossible, I admit. But now you see that's not the case at all. Time to say goodbye to your cherished belief.

T.A.M.

19th April 2009, 01:02 PM

You're probably aware that there is some experimental support for this theory -- Mythbusters built scale models (http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2007/01/episode_70_hindenburg_mystery.html) to test this. My impression from viewing their results is that thermite was probably a significant contributor, but not the root cause or necessary for the disaster.

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that the purely scientific comments in this thread echo those in the several other threads already worked through in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories forum. The results Dr. Jones found are consistent with paint flaking off rusty steel. The constituent materials are unremarkable in chemical composition, size, and relative abundance. The thermal properties are unremarkable (paint burns, yo). And even if we accept it was magic thermite, the amount of heating it could apply is not particularly significant.

Time to call it quits, metamars. You came here looking for different opinions, on the assumption that posters in the other forum were jaded and knee-jerk reactionaries that would dismiss whatever Dr. Jones said -- not impossible, I admit. But now you see that's not the case at all. Time to say goodbye to your cherished belief.

No, now he will simply declare that everyone here at the JREF is jaded and knee-jerk reactionaries...lol

TAM;)

R.Mackey

19th April 2009, 01:38 PM

No, now he will simply declare that everyone here at the JREF is jaded and knee-jerk reactionaries...lol

TAM;)

Perhaps he will. But if so, and if he's sincere, his next move will be to test that theory. One way is to talk to university physics, chemistry, and material science professors. He won't get a warm reception there, either, but eventually, he should at least begin to suspect that the null hypothesis -- that the "paper" is sheer rubbish -- just might be correct.

Burden of proof is still his, however.

BenBurch

19th April 2009, 01:55 PM

Care to address the chain of custody issues, Metamars?

Dog Town

19th April 2009, 10:01 PM

...

Anyway, it doesn't surprise me that the purely scientific comments in this thread echo those in the several other threads already worked through in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories forum...

Time to call it quits, metamars. You came here looking for different opinions, on the assumption that posters in the other forum were jaded and knee-jerk reactionaries that would dismiss whatever Dr. Jones said -- not impossible, I admit. But now you see that's not the case at all. Time to say goodbye to your cherished belief.

Well said Ryan!
In honor of Met, I will quote myself.
So do it already, start your own thread, what's stopping you? Wander on over, and see how it goes.
I predict a similar out come to your experiences with Dr.G.
What was it he called some of your ramblings,"out to lunch"?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140317&page=3
Indeed!

metamars

20th April 2009, 07:13 PM

Local Thermal Analysis technique exists which is like DSC, but for sub-100 nm portions of a specimen.

See http://www.anasysinstruments.com/an10.pdf

This paper shows a very high correlation with bulk DSC "onsets", up to 250 C. I'm not sure what the situation is with higher temperatures.

Net/net is: if they can get their hands on such a device, and it's accurate up to 600 C, then they can use it on just the red part of the chips to see if that alone has a thermal fingerprint like thermite.

BTW, if you look at the Grainier thesis, you can see some DSC's with onsets around 430 C. However, you don't see the peaks until 500 C or so. Harrit, et. al. get peaks around 430 C.

Ultimately, I'd think this difference needs to be explained, quantitatively. I think that maybe it can be done by figuring out what temperature will crack the al oxide layer of a platelet. This page (http://www.accuratus.com/alumox.html) gives data that could help in such a calculation. I had earlier guessed that Al oxide shells of platelets would crack at their edges. Looking at this page, I wonder if I have guessed exactly wrong, as it's the flexural strength that is in the MPa range. Recall that ultimate strength in a spherical Al oxide shell approached the theoretical maximum strength of 11.3 GPa

R.Mackey

20th April 2009, 10:11 PM

You should keep in mind that mechanical properties (like pressure) tend to behave oddly at the microscale. Surface chemistry is a particularly important example. Don't read too much into steady-state pressure or temperature when dealing with small particles -- things like shock, sound, and static electricity can be unexpectedly important.

But since we're dealing with paint here, I don't expect to find anything unusual.

Megalodon

21st April 2009, 02:47 AM

So, metamars... did you "miss" post #67, or did you concede the point?

ElMondoHummus

21st April 2009, 09:15 AM

This paper seriously needs to be put to bed. Poster Sunstealer has already quite effectively refuted the notion that the material discussed in the paper is thermite; that post is here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4607894#post4607894). Further commentary and discussion is available here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017). Regardless of what the paper's authors have said, none of their data supports the contention that the material discovered is "thermite". The X-EDS spectra has been commented on by Sunstealer. The thermodynamics have been discussed by several others. The point here is that it's an unsalvageable work. No obsession over calorimetric minituae or stoichimetric proportions of elements rescues the work from the fact that none of the data presented to begin with establishes anything other than the presence of certain elements. And no EDX or calorimeter measurements were needed to reach that conclusion.

metamars

21st April 2009, 10:13 AM

No obsession over calorimetric minituae or stoichimetric proportions of elements rescues the work from the fact that none of the data presented to begin with establishes anything other than the presence of certain elements.

The argument in the paper is more complex than that. It is basically a cumulative argument, which, I'll venture to guess, is often the case in a forensic type investigation - at least in it's initial stages.

The DSC data is not inconsistent with thermite. Unfortunately, taken by itself, it's unnecessarily ambiguous - there could be other substances that give such readings.

So, are there other materials which combust to yield microspheres, and which have DSC data, taken in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, which are also consistent with the Harrit data, and which are not (non-stoichiometric*) thermite?

Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't. Debunkers have avoided refuting Harrit's cumulative argument - they have not produced a single candidate which has all those properties. That, in and of itself, does not mean that nobody will ever be able to do so.

As far as Sunstealer's krapolinite theory, it remains to be seen if he even bothers matching the DSC data - something which I find extremently doubtful, having seen DSC graphs for "raw kaolinite" and kaolinite treated with DMSO. Of course, the fact that he's neither produced any burnt, krapolinite-containing paint chips with microspheres, or even hinting that he's going to try, leads me to believe that he doesn't really believe his krapolinite theory, in spite of his bluster. Of course, I welcome him to prove me wrong. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4638072&postcount=38) Indeed, I also welcome any attempt by him to write a coherent rebuttal, free of ad hominems, which I can print out and present to my friendly, neighborhood material scientist, along with the Harrit paper. Somehow, I don't think he's going to do that, either. (I've now asked him 3 times whether he's going to or not, with no answer given.)

IMHO, the biggest problem with the Harrit paper is that XEDS cannot unequivocably prove the abundance of elemental aluminum in the sample. No elemental Al abundance means no thermite. I know very little about XEDS, but that's the impression that I get from Greening and Sunstealer.

Hence, I have my doubts that the scientific community will accept the conclusion of nanothermite, unless further evidence of the abundance of elemental Al is produced. Even then, if it really is thermite, researchers should be able to eventually probe the structure of the platelets, and show an Al oxide layer is surrounding the elemental Al rich interior. They should also be able to run a LIBS test on the chips, to see if they have the fingerprint of known paints and coatings. Finally, there are ways to do a DSC-like test at the 100 nm scale, via use of special probes. Thus, I expect that they can eventually (if they can access the resources) unequivocably show that the chips are nanothermite to the scientific community, or disprove the hypothesis.

I know that another party is studying a sample with TEM, but I am as familiar with TEM as I am with XEDS.....

* I've been assuming that, if the chips are nanothermite, then they must completely "prefer" to react with oxygen from Fe2O3, and only afterwards utilize gaseous O2, when the Fe2O3 is exhausted. However, on further thought, there's no particularly good reason for me, a non-chemist, to suppose that. In fact I don't think the question of "saying no" to gaseous O2 even arises. It's really a question of the relative rates of O2 utilization, simultaneously, from the get-go. Thus, since the Al + O2 gas reaction releases so much more energy than the Al + Fe2O3 reaction (per mole of Al), it seems quite possible that even stoichiometric nanothermite could yield 8 KJ/g in an oxygen containing environment. Of course, in this case, there will be leftover Fe2O3.

Moral of the story: don't play with nanothermite in an oxygen tent!!!!

Megalodon

21st April 2009, 10:23 AM

The DSC data is not inconsistent with thermite. Unfortunately, taken by itself, it's unnecessarily ambiguous - there could be other substances that give such readings.

So, are there other materials which combust to yield microspheres, and which have DSC data, taken in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, which are also consistent with the Harrit data, and which are not (non-stoichiometric*) thermite?

You fail to understand the crux of the matter: it doesn't matter if the material is thermite, nano-thermite, plutonium or anti-matter. From the moment you can't be sure of the origin of the material, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because people lie and fabricate evidence. And people with axes to grind have a lot of motivation to do so. And 5-6 years is a lot of time for people to get around doing it.

But anyway, are you going to address post #67?

metamars

21st April 2009, 10:38 AM

You fail to understand the crux of the matter: it doesn't matter if the material is thermite, nano-thermite, plutonium or anti-matter. From the moment you can't be sure of the origin of the material, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because people lie and fabricate evidence. And people with axes to grind have a lot of motivation to do so. And 5-6 years is a lot of time for people to get around doing it.

Ah! I see! So Jones may have had the wherewithal to manufacture nanothermite, and is simply pretending that he has limited resources to utilize for the analysis. Plus, he has a team, hence, you are positing a conspiracy theory.

You may want to post your conspiracy theory in the 911 Conspiracy Theory forum.

But anyway, are you going to address post #67?

Sorry to make you wait. Look for it Sunday - I try to restrict my postings till then, though with little success since the thermitic paper came out. Last Sunday was a major holiday that I had sort of forgotten about. And, to be quite frank about it, I think we've seen the best shots that the debunker community are going to take against the paper, and the results are no longer compelling enough for me to break my often-violated "only on Sunday" rule. Obviously, this post and my previous one are exceptions.

Any 911 truthers, lurkers, etc. who agree with my assessment of the "best shots" having been taken - this is your cue to take the paper to folks who are able and willing to evaluate it fairly. That means domain experts such as material scientists and physical chemists.

I suppose a good screening question is: "Do you know what a DSC is, and how to interpret a XEDS?" If they don't know the answers, you probably knocked on the wrong door.

Megalodon

21st April 2009, 11:00 AM

Ah! I see! So Jones may have had the wherewithal to manufacture nanothermite, and is simply pretending that he has limited resources to utilize for the analysis. Plus, he has a team, hence, you are positing a conspiracy theory.

Are you really this dense? I'm saying that a scientific article will not have problems with the collection of material, or else they will not be published. Afterall, that was the pretense of your OP, to have the paper evaluated by scientists, from a scientific perspective.

Any 911 truthers, lurkers, etc. who agree with my assessment of the "best shots" having been taken - this is your cue to take the paper to folks who are able and willing to evaluate it fairly.

Translation: "The mean grown-ups didn't like the vanity article I brought them, and wouldn't make exceptions for the flagrant breaches of scientific conduct in it, so I'm pouting."

I suppose a good screening question is: "Do you know what a DSC is, and how to interpret a XEDS?" If they don't know the answers, you probably knocked on the wrong door.

For getting the answers you crave, I would suggest the following instead: "Is your IQ below 80?" and "How laced do you like your Kool-Aid?"

Ziggurat

21st April 2009, 11:00 AM

Ah! I see! So Jones may have had the wherewithal to manufacture nanothermite

Who said anything about manufacturing it? In fact, who said anything about Jones being the source of it? The point isn't that we know Jones committed fraud, the point is that there's simply no way to know if the stuff actually came from the WTC, and therefore any analysis of it, regardless of the conclusions about what the material is, cannot be used to make any conclusion about what happened at the WTC because we simply do not know if the stuff came from there.

and is simply pretending that he has limited resources to utilize for the analysis.

Limited resources on his part don't make useless data any good. And data on samples of unknown origin are useless. Quite a simple concept, really, but one you still seem to be struggling with.

pgwenthold

21st April 2009, 11:02 AM

You fail to understand the crux of the matter: it doesn't matter if the material is thermite, nano-thermite, plutonium or anti-matter. From the moment you can't be sure of the origin of the material, it doesn't matter.

In court, yes, that is true. But jeez, why quibble about such issues when it really doesn't matter. Even if they are authentic samples, it doesn't mean squat. See ElMundoHummus's summary above.

The whole paper is an exercise in illogical thinking. Just because A --> B does not mean B implies A. Forensic scientists know this, and the whole goal of their analysis is to rule out other sources of B.

Go back and read the "Life on Mars" paper in Science from the early 90s. Whereas the authors present their evidence, they also spend a great deal of effort working to exclude other possible explanations (and they likely missed it). If this paper doesn't rule out other possible sources, then it is basically worthless from a forensic standpoint. There is no need to discount the analytical findings (there are nanometer sized metal particles), but the conclusion that it is "nanothermite" is unsupportable.

Of course, the whole claim completely begs the question of whether "nanothermite" could produce the observed results. Has anyone EVER used "nanothermite" for building demolition? (yeah, I know the answer). That's part of the looniness: let's see, we are going to do a deliberate demolition of buildings massively larger than anything ever done before; we are going to disguise our activities by crashing jets into the buildings, but in the end, we are going to destroy the building using a protocol that has NEVER been used to bring down even a small building before.

That's brilliant!

Dog Town

21st April 2009, 11:30 AM

I also welcome any attempt by him to write a coherent rebuttal, free of ad hominems, which I can print out and present to my friendly, neighborhood material scientist, along with the Harrit paper.

Why? Are you afraid of the Harrit, Dr.Jones paper on it's own? Seeing as everywhere you have presented it you have been told how worthless it is.
Just submit it to your neighborhood scientist alone, let us know how that went. I am willing to bet, it turns out just like your other endeavors with it.
Sad that you claim to want the truth, yet you run from it like the plague!

Megalodon

21st April 2009, 12:02 PM

In court, yes, that is true. But jeez, why quibble about such issues when it really doesn't matter. Even if they are authentic samples, it doesn't mean squat. See ElMundoHummus's summary above.

We were asked to review the manuscript as if for scientific publication. That's what I did...

The whole paper is an exercise in illogical thinking. Just because A --> B does not mean B implies A. Forensic scientists know this, and the whole goal of their analysis is to rule out other sources of B.

I wince at calling it a "paper". It's not Ivory Tower Syndrome... It's just that I worked for many years to become a scientist, and such blatant profanation of scientific institutions annoys me.

T.A.M.

21st April 2009, 12:53 PM

ElMondoHummus

21st April 2009, 01:09 PM

(*Sigh*)... this is exactly what I meant when I said "minituae".

The argument in the paper is more complex than that. It is basically a cumulative argument, which, I'll venture to guess, is often the case in a forensic type investigation - at least in it's initial stages.

And none of the points accumulate towards thermite. That's the entire problem. If you want to see a genuine cumulative argument, study the reasoning behind the conclusion that Flight United 93 was indeed the one that impacted the ground in Pennsylvania. All point towards one conclusion, and all work towards eliminating others.

This paper doesn't do that. Jones establishes that iron, oxygen, aluminum, and a smattering of other materials is present. That is far from narrowing things down to thermite.

The DSC data is not inconsistent with thermite. Unfortunately, taken by itself, it's unnecessarily ambiguous - there could be other substances that give such readings.

It's worse than ambiguous, it's openly misleading. It's presented in an argument that the heat given off demonstrates that the material is thermite. That's the whole problem with it. I agree with you in the other thread in 9/11CT that combustion from organic material could be contributing towards the calorimeter readings, but the point is that the authors made zero distinction between that and the supposed amount that thermite supposedly contributed. Yet, they argue that the material is "energetic" enough to be a cause of the collapse.

Please.

So, are there other materials which combust to yield microspheres, and which have DSC data, taken in an oxygen-containing atmosphere, which are also consistent with the Harrit data, and which are not (non-stoichiometric*) thermite?

Maybe there are, and maybe there aren't. Debunkers have avoided refuting Harrit's cumulative argument - they have not produced a single candidate which has all those properties. That, in and of itself, does not mean that nobody will ever be able to do so.

Many fallacies here, the most silly one being that there's a need to provide a single candidate that has all the properties of the chips the authors have studied. Over in 9/11 CT, we did work at that in order to indulge our own curiosity and provide more in depth answers, but the paper doesn't need to be invalidated with a whole other candidate. We've already shown that the work is shoddy enough to invalidate it's own conclusions. The calorimeter data is about as irrelevant to the thesis as could be possible, since they're not measuring a thermite reaction. The EDX work was addressed by Sunstealer. Their elimination of paint as a possible candidate was so insufficient it's laughable. And so on.

As far as Sunstealer's krapolinite theory, it remains to be seen if he even bothers matching the DSC data - something which I find extremently doubtful, having seen DSC graphs for "raw kaolinite" and kaolinite treated with DMSO. Of course, the fact that he's neither produced any burnt, krapolinite-containing paint chips with microspheres, or even hinting that he's going to try, leads me to believe that he doesn't really believe his krapolinite theory, in spite of his bluster. Of course, I welcome him to prove me wrong. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4638072&postcount=38) Indeed, I also welcome any attempt by him to write a coherent rebuttal, free of ad hominems, which I can print out and present to my friendly, neighborhood material scientist, along with the Harrit paper. Somehow, I don't think he's going to do that, either. (I've now asked him 3 times whether he's going to or not, with no answer given.)

You can harp on kaoline all you like, but you do so at your own peril. The substantive element of Sunstealer's posts were his use of the authors' own EDX spectra to refute their proposals. That is the crux of things, not his one proposal of an alternate candidate. Even if the material isn't kaolin either, it doesn't matter. He's effectively demonstrated the paucity of proof in the EDX data and the leaps required to conclude thermite from it.

It's distressing that you ignore the substantive element in favor of - again - concentrating on the minituae of the irrelevant. If the material is not kaoline - and I'm not convinced by your argument that it's not - then it still doesn't matter. It's not thermite either.

IMHO, the biggest problem with the Harrit paper is that XEDS cannot unequivocably prove the abundance of elemental aluminum in the sample. No elemental Al abundance means no thermite. I know very little about XEDS, but that's the impression that I get from Greening and Sunstealer.

If that's the biggest problem you've identified, you've missed some serious whoppers.

Hence, I have my doubts that the scientific community will accept the conclusion of nanothermite, unless further evidence of the abundance of elemental Al is produced. Even then, if it really is thermite, researchers should be able to eventually probe the structure of the platelets, and show an Al oxide layer is surrounding the elemental Al rich interior. They should also be able to run a LIBS test on the chips, to see if they have the fingerprint of known paints and coatings. Finally, there are ways to do a DSC-like test at the 100 nm scale, via use of special probes. Thus, I expect that they can eventually (if they can access the resources) unequivocably show that the chips are nanothermite to the scientific community, or disprove the hypothesis.

I know that another party is studying a sample with TEM, but I am as familiar with TEM as I am with XEDS.....

The central hypothesis - that the authors found intentionally planted thermite - was disproven long before the paper was even published. The utter lack of effect any supposed incendiary had on the steel members itself disproves it. Everything after that is an indulgence for curiosities sake, and any proposals of thermite use in the utter absence of recognizable effects on the recovered steel is hot air.

Corsair 115

21st April 2009, 04:11 PM

No, now he will simply declare that everyone here at the JREF is jaded and knee-jerk reactionaries...lol

Then after that metamars need only invoke the name of Noam Chomsky and circle will be complete...

Pipirr

21st April 2009, 04:37 PM

Even better would be to get other WTC dust samples and have an inde----

oh snap! They have done that already, and not a single paper on WTC Dust analysis mentions the presence of thermite!!!!

TAM;)

Out of general interest: who are they, and what papers? Official reports kinds of things, or has this played out in the scientific literature at all?

Harpyja

21st April 2009, 04:58 PM

So, we're to believe that Ph.D. level physicists and chemists don't know the difference between energy and power? This is a nonsense criticism?

Argument from authority.

BenBurch

21st April 2009, 07:58 PM

Care to address the chain of custody issues, Metamars?

Dancing David

22nd April 2009, 05:48 AM

Then after that metamars need only invoke the name of Noam Chomsky and circle will be complete...

Hey leave Noam out of this!

Dancing David

22nd April 2009, 05:51 AM

Strangely this is very like the plasma cosmology stuff. A bunch of unrelated things lead to a conclusion that is false as each of the bits in the chain are incorrectly applied. They may or may not be true as individual facts and are often as not wrong.

But the interpretations says that the 'picture looks like a bunny' therefore a bunny exists.

BenBurch

22nd April 2009, 07:18 AM

Hey leave Noam out of this!

He doesn't believe this stuff anyway. I asked him.

T.A.M.

22nd April 2009, 08:47 AM

Out of general interest: who are they, and what papers? Official reports kinds of things, or has this played out in the scientific literature at all?

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html
(warning, next link is a PDF)
http://nyumedicalcenter.org/environmental/research/wtc/ehp.pdf

For starters.

Do a search for "WTC Dust Analysis" on Google Scholar for more.

TAM:)

Pipirr

22nd April 2009, 12:05 PM

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2003/5930/5930.html
(warning, next link is a PDF)
http://nyumedicalcenter.org/environmental/research/wtc/ehp.pdf

For starters.

Do a search for "WTC Dust Analysis" on Google Scholar for more.

TAM:)

Okay, that sort of research. I wasn't sure if you meant papers that had specifically looked for thermite but hadn't found it.

So there's some interesting work that's been done, like the efforts at identifying a WTC dust signature (that, oddly enough, did not contain thermite). Lots of drywall dust, but no thermite.

Trying (albeit not very hard) to get into the spirit of things here:

One might argue that if the presence of thermite in dust samples proves explosives were used to bring down the towers, then (by the same sort of argument) the presence of gypsum and slag wool in dust samples proves the towers were brought down by poor quality dry walling.

And seeing as all that dust is a lung irritant, one can confidently conclude that the pulmonologists were behind it.

T.A.M.

22nd April 2009, 01:11 PM

Okay, that sort of research. I wasn't sure if you meant papers that had specifically looked for thermite but hadn't found it.

So there's some interesting work that's been done, like the efforts at identifying a WTC dust signature (that, oddly enough, did not contain thermite). Lots of drywall dust, but no thermite.

Trying (albeit not very hard) to get into the spirit of things here:

One might argue that if the presence of thermite in dust samples proves explosives were used to bring down the towers, then (by the same sort of argument) the presence of gypsum and slag wool in dust samples proves the towers were brought down by poor quality dry walling.

And seeing as all that dust is a lung irritant, one can confidently conclude that the pulmonologists were behind it.

well, what Jones and his guys are claiming, is they have found "superthermite", unreacted, in the form of these "red/grey chips" they found in their samples.

The problems are numerous, but some highlights...

1. In their study/analysis they either did not address at all, or addressed in a very minimal (hardly conclusive) way, other possible sources for their "red/grey" chips. This is despite the fact that many other KNOWN WTC DUST samples where a chain of custody is known, they mention PAINT CHIPS as a major component of the dust. Jones makes no mention of paint chips in his samples. Red Primer Paint would produce a similar EDS spectra to at least one of their EDS spectra for their "thermite".

2. Their "samples' of WTC dust were DONATED TO THEM by people. The chain of custody is non-existent, and the motives for donating your WTC dust samples to a little known scientist with an agenda to prove 9/11 was an inside job 6 years after the incident (they gave him the samples in 2007-2008) begs many serious questions.

3. They published their work in a little known "pay to publish" Open access journal of ill repute. The journal has had numerous complaints against it, including their viral campaign to obtain members for their editorial boards by sending out mass emails, often to people unqualified to be editorial board members. They were even allowed to suggest 4 of their own referees for "peer review".

TAM:)

ElMondoHummus

22nd April 2009, 02:08 PM

well, what Jones and his guys are claiming, is they have found "superthermite", unreacted, in the form of these "red/grey chips" they found in their samples.

The problems are numerous, but some highlights...

1. In their study/analysis they either did not address at all, or addressed in a very minimal (hardly conclusive) way, other possible sources for their "red/grey" chips. This is despite the fact that many other KNOWN WTC DUST samples where a chain of custody is known, they mention PAINT CHIPS as a major component of the dust. Jones makes no mention of paint chips in his samples. Red Primer Paint would produce a similar EDS spectra to at least one of their EDS spectra for their "thermite".

2. Their "samples' of WTC dust were DONATED TO THEM by people. The chain of custody is non-existent, and the motives for donating your WTC dust samples to a little known scientist with an agenda to prove 9/11 was an inside job 6 years after the incident (they gave him the samples in 2007-2008) begs many serious questions.

3. They published their work in a little known "pay to publish" Open access journal of ill repute. The journal has had numerous complaints against it, including their viral campaign to obtain members for their editorial boards by sending out mass emails, often to people unqualified to be editorial board members. They were even allowed to suggest 4 of their own referees for "peer review".

TAM:)

Just to add to TAM's excellent highlighting here: Tackling the paper on its own terms is an indulgence; it grants the authors some small consideration from the start. In truth, if someone wanted to be really rigorous about critiquing the concept of thermite playing a role in the World Trade Center collapse, they'd ask why the steel that was recovered only showed signs of mechanical failure, and not explosive or incendiary effects (NIST's NCSTAR 1-3 (http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm) report covers steel that was recovered from the collapse)? But that is indeed off the subject of the paper itself. To return to topic, I think one of the fundamental issues with the paper is that the evidence does not properly cumulate towards a thermite conclusion. It is presumed, not established. To me, that's a damming failure.

ferd burfle

22nd April 2009, 03:15 PM

metmars:

there is an easy solution to all this, but one which I doubt we will see.

Jones needs to PUBLICLY submit his samples to an IDENTIFIED, INDEPENDENT LAB. He needs to submit them for detailed analysis, WITHOUT LEADING THE LAB PERSONNEL, in terms of their analysis. We then need, made public, the results of that labs analysis.

This lab must be free of personal or professional affiliation with the scientists who authored/co-authored the paper.

TAM:)

Edit: of course, this still does not help with the "chain of custody", which we simply have to take Jones' word for, and assume the samples were not tainted/manipulated.

Even better would be to get other WTC dust samples and have an inde----

oh snap! They have done that already, and not a single paper on WTC Dust analysis mentions the presence of thermite!!!!

TAM;)

Ignoring your apt edit for the moment, TAM, this is exactly right. And the right type of lab to send it to is...wait for it...a lab of professionals who specialize in identification of fine particles. Pardon me for repeating from a post in the CT forum but the best example I know is McCrone Associates. They start with characterization under the light microscope and often can identify particles on sight based on their vast experience. And they have all the expensive, hyphenated microanalysis techniques available in their lab (SEM-EDX, micro FT-IR, etc.) to back up their visual observations. But as I said before, there's no way the Jones gang would ever submit their samples to such an analysis---the results would not show their "analysis" in a very good light.

Ferd

T.A.M.

22nd April 2009, 03:21 PM

Ignoring your apt edit for the moment, TAM, this is exactly right. And the right type of lab to send it to is...wait for it...a lab of professionals who specialize in identification of fine particles. Pardon me for repeating from a post in the CT forum but the best example I know is McCrone Associates. They start with characterization under the light microscope and often can identify particles on sight based on their vast experience. And they have all the expensive, hyphenated microanalysis techniques available in their lab (SEM-EDX, micro FT-IR, etc.) to back up their visual observations. But as I said before, there's no way the Jones gang would ever submit their samples to such an analysis---the results would not show their "analysis" in a very good light.

Ferd

Well I think this lab sounds like the perfect solution...

So to metamars, here I give you a proposition for good old Steven Jones and friends.

Ask Jones to provide his samples to McCrone Associates. Have them independently analyze the samples, including the chips. Have them perform the tests that Jones performed on his samples, as well as any other relevant tests that would help determine the composition of the dust. Ask them for their results, and an interpretation of their results.

TAM:)

Zeuzzz

22nd April 2009, 07:01 PM

So to metamars, here I give you a proposition for good old Steven Jones and friends.

Good old Jones seems to have quite a few friends last time I checked. I dont think that Jones et al is representative of all the physicists, engineers and architects that have issues with the collapses of world trade center seven (or even [to a lesser extent] the twin towers themselves)

I've given up on this rabbit hole, to many unanswered questions about the physics of the collapses, yet sooooooooo little viable theories to explain why they would be purposely demolished.

The fact of the matter is; there are so many possibilities to factor in, with so little empirical evidence to base it on, that no consensus is likely ever going to be reached on these very controversial issues.

But looking at the list of engineers and scientists that have raised their eyebrows here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html It does make me wonder if they have a point. Is there a rival list of scientists to counter that list of 600 or so? Greening I know is one, who is an active poster in the conspiracy theory section, and has (if I remember correctly) in fact also got questions about the collapses himself and expressed some doubt himself, but still remains very critical of Jones' work. Any more?

Oh no, I'm entering the 9/11 conspiracy rabit hole again!

sol invictus

22nd April 2009, 08:39 PM

The fact of the matter is; there are so many possibilities to factor in, with so little empirical evidence to base it on, that no consensus is likely ever going to be reached on these very controversial issues.

What the **** are you talking about? "So many possibilities"?? "So little empirical evidence"??? Two planes flew into two buildings in sight of thousands of people in one of the busiest parts of one of the biggest cities in the world. Hours later, the buildings fell down, destroying some of the structures around them. Thousands of pages of analysis have been written, hundreds or thousands of witnesses interviews, tons of physical evidence collected, computer simulations run.... we know essentially every detail of what happened, from planning to execution to aftermath.

"Little empirical evidence"? What an utterly moronic thing to say.

But looking at the list of engineers and scientists that have raised their eyebrows here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html It does make me wonder if they have a point. Is there a rival list of scientists to counter that list of 600 or so?

Only creationists, 9/11 troothers, and plasma cosmology crankjobs make lists like that. So no.

Pantaz

22nd April 2009, 09:47 PM

Is there a rival list of scientists to counter that list of 600 or so?

That would be the tens of thousands that see no validity in that silliness.

Zeuzzz

23rd April 2009, 01:06 AM

What the **** are you talking about? "So many possibilities"?? "So little empirical evidence"??? Two planes flew into two buildings in sight of thousands of people in one of the busiest parts of one of the biggest cities in the world. Hours later, the buildings fell down, destroying some of the structures around them. Thousands of pages of analysis have been written, hundreds or thousands of witnesses interviews, tons of physical evidence collected, computer simulations run.... we know essentially every detail of what happened, from planning to execution to aftermath.

"Little empirical evidence"? What an utterly moronic thing to say.

I was not talking about the twin towers, like I said "with the collapses of world trade center seven (or even [to a lesser extent] the twin towers themselves)"

Take a trip to the conspiracy section, Sol. There are many qualified engineers and architects discussing the mechanics of the collapses, the NIST reports, the energy and momentum tranfer considerations possible, and have been for years. You could maybe even contribute something valid to the discussion if you could keep your cool and refrain from the stereotypes and Ad Homs.

9/11 troothers, and plasma cosmology crankjobs make lists like that. So no.

I wouldn't call them truthers, or troothers, or even twoofers. Some are plain nuts, granted. Some are not. In fact, I wouldn't stereotype them into a group with a name at all. I'd just say they are a collection of people that all for separate reasons dont accept the official version of events and want a public open investigation into 9/11 and their questions answered. Some of which I respect, not for thier views on 9/11, but personally for their contributions to science and polotics, irrelivant of their views on 9/11 (including two of my ex local parliamentary representatives, one of whom I voted for). I'm just a neutral by stander who has previously refused to get into this whole debacle. But seems to have here. :eye-poppi

As I said, I've had enough of this rabit hole, and am getting out quick now.

sol invictus

23rd April 2009, 05:47 AM

I was not talking about the twin towers, like I said "with the collapses of world trade center seven (or even [to a lesser extent] the twin towers themselves)"

You weren't talking about the twin towers, you were talking about WTC 7 and the twin towers.

You could maybe even contribute something valid to the discussion if you could keep your cool and refrain from the stereotypes and Ad Homs.

There is absolutely nothing to discuss, so it would be difficult to contribute to the "discussion". At least this thread is about something concrete - if totally empty, as we've seen.

I'd just say they are a collection of people that all for separate reasons dont accept the official version of events and want a public open investigation into 9/11 and their questions answered.

Yeah, if only there had been a thorough investigation into 9/11 which published its results. Huh...

Megalodon

23rd April 2009, 06:06 AM

Only creationists, 9/11 troothers, global warming deniers and plasma cosmology crankjobs make lists like that. So no.

Edited for completion ;)

I was not talking about the twin towers, like I said "with the collapses of world trade center seven (or even [to a lesser extent] the twin towers themselves)"

So, you were not talking about the twin towers, only about wtc7 and the twin towers... That must make sense somewhere, under the right medication.

Take a trip to the conspiracy section, Sol. There are many qualified engineers and architects discussing the mechanics of the collapses, the NIST reports, the energy and momentum tranfer considerations possible, and have been for years.

Yes, there are... they're all trying to convince the nutjobs that a stack of pizza boxes is not an adequate model for the towers...

Cuddles

23rd April 2009, 07:38 AM

But looking at the list of engineers and scientists that have raised their eyebrows here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html It does make me wonder if they have a point. Is there a rival list of scientists to counter that list of 600 or so?

http://ncseweb.org/taking-action/project-steve

ElMondoHummus

23rd April 2009, 07:41 AM

Good old Jones seems to have quite a few friends last time I checked. I dont think that Jones et al is representative of all the physicists, engineers and architects that have issues with the collapses of world trade center seven (or even [to a lesser extent] the twin towers themselves)

I've given up on this rabbit hole, to many unanswered questions about the physics of the collapses, yet sooooooooo little viable theories to explain why they would be purposely demolished.

The fact of the matter is; there are so many possibilities to factor in, with so little empirical evidence to base it on, that no consensus is likely ever going to be reached on these very controversial issues.

But looking at the list of engineers and scientists that have raised their eyebrows here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html It does make me wonder if they have a point. Is there a rival list of scientists to counter that list of 600 or so? Greening I know is one, who is an active poster in the conspiracy theory section, and has (if I remember correctly) in fact also got questions about the collapses himself and expressed some doubt himself, but still remains very critical of Jones' work. Any more?

Oh no, I'm entering the 9/11 conspiracy rabit hole again!

Enough silly and stupid arguing from authority. What has always mattered and what will always matter is what is being said, not who says it. I have looked over these "Fill-in-the-blank for 911 Truth" or "Random-profession-questions-911" groups. What they say are the same, silly misrepresentations that Gravy (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com), Mike W. (http://911myths.com), and everybody else has refuted a long time ago. The fact that they claim to be members of a given profession, even if they really are, has zero relevance. The fact that the claims they peddle are bunk have 100% relevance. When they peddle explosives (http://debunking911.com/explosions.htm) or free fall (http://debunking911.com/freefall.htm), or any other conspiratorial and long disproven myths, they fail. It doesn't matter what their profession is. They fail. Einstein claiming "the world is flat" wouldn't make it true. "Scientists", "engineers", and "patriots" peddling BS about 9/11 doesn't make that true either.