Frederic Henry-Couannier? (trying to reproduce Jones' nanothermite analysis)

[Panoply_Prefect]

Anyone heard of him? Apparently he is working on a paper due in some two months, that deals with Jone's nanothermite claim.

He's got some sort of preliminary up here:

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/redreds.pdf

Here an insight into his potential bias (in french):

http://www.darksideofgravity.com/911index.html

[R.Mackey]

Unless I'm mistaken, he's a poster here: http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=31619

Regardless of his biases, a proper scientific study will soon put to rest any and all of Dr. Jones's nonsense. I'll be interested to see his final results.

[Panoply_Prefect]

Unless I'm mistaken, he's a poster here: http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=31619

Regardless of his biases, a proper scientific study will soon put to rest any and all of Dr. Jones's nonsense. I'll be interested to see his final results.

Of course his bias need not affect his results, a good study stands by itself.

As far as I understand he is not testing Jones' samples, but some new that he has aquired? (The source is somewhat sketchy on his webpage)

Henrico, I just heard the two month time frame from a poster on another board - could you tell us a bit of your study?

[boloboffin]

Using Google Translate on this page (http://www.darksideofgravity.com/11%20Septembre%202001.html), he says he can't fully confirm the identification of nanothermite, and thus believes, well...

Why is it so important to establish whether it was to the same objects? because of my side and after multiple tests none of the red chips that I brought up to 900 ° C has responded by producing molten iron in complete contradiction with the result highlighted by the authors of the article, result which, I repeat, is the only truly reliable publication as the only one that can be verified by anyone independently! That the layer of red chips gray / red and red chips are one and the same may be confirmed by photos that show some chips with the red part is already widely separated. My negative result should be extended to all chips: they are not thermite particles may react with less than 500 ° C. I get the spectra after heating are clear: the iron and aluminum remained in the same proportions, only carbon has decreased very significantly: it burned with oxygen from the air.

In short, despite repeated efforts, I can not confirm the presence of particles in the dust nanothermitiques! Thus there are several possibilities: either my samples were falsified, or published studies are fraudulent or have been made from a material also forged ahead. From which my samples?: From what I understand, leaflets distributed in New York have prompted those still in possession of the WTC dust to give it the pretext of health studies. We received by mail in Marseille 4 samples from 4 different people, one of them m'ayant contacted directly by email to ask if the dust was a danger to his health and had enough air upset when I explained to him that it was collecting evidence of an inside job (apparently I Gaffé and I was called to order by the organizer of this collection was explained to me that I was not supposed to be in direct contact with shippers). This episode and the similarity of red chips that I found in all samples (and other particles such as dust microspheres) tends to convince me of the authenticity of them. The differences from sample to sample seem explained by the conditions of collection: some that have collected dust, others also gravel glass and concrete biggest ...

Why my samples had been falsified? so that I can not corroborate the study published? why as my role in this whole story is very modest? Moreover, the secret services of all countries may well get more reliable than me and the dust be analyzed ... those who participated in the inside job can not be hoped to hide this material and compromising deceive foreign intelligence services who have also all the elements to be long convinced of the reality of the inside job (free fall of WTC7 by example, or fighter aircraft that are not addressed by the 11 / 9)!

That is why I tend to think today that the samples are authentic, which means that all theses thermite or nano thermite may be borked and probably have been put forward to mislead. To deceive whom? Why? Certainly not the masses that all ways are completely under control of the media. Probably more foreign intelligence services that beyond the reality of the inside job (not hard to show for experts) would be rather interested in the type of technology used on 11 / 9. The nanothermite would be essentially a decoy? It is already clear that the nanothermite could not explain the explosive destruction of the towers, just possibly the initiation of a collapse of natural appearance with weakened (by heating it more efficiently than fire) of steel structures.

I think what he's saying is that Jones et al. have been deceived by fake nanothermite chips to hide the true way the towers were brought down, which he goes on to say might have been cold fusion.

[Dave Rogers]

I think what he's saying is that Jones et al. have been deceived by fake nanothermite chips to hide the true way the towers were brought down, which he goes on to say might have been cold fusion.

Sounds more like he's accusing Harrit and Jones of being disinfo agents. Perhaps he hasn't considered incompetence?

Dave

[bill smith]

Sounds more like he's accusing Harrit and Jones of being disinfo agents. Perhaps he hasn't considered incompetence?

Dave

It sounds like he might encounter Judy Woods and her Hurricane any minute.

[boloboffin]

Sounds more like he's accusing Harrit and Jones of being disinfo agents. Perhaps he hasn't considered incompetence?

Dave

Oh. So Jones et al. are the ones hiding the cold fusion with the faked nanothermite chips?

Wait, don't answer that. Let me pop some corn.

[dtugg]

Jones and Harrit are disinfo agents? LOL! This is great!

[bill smith]

Jones and Harrit are disinfo agents? LOL! This is great!

If they were we would learn an awful lot from that fact alone.

[T.A.M.]

Fred Henri seems to be like Frank Greening, but less bitter, and more paranoid. Seems a good soul underneath, just thinks the government HAD to be in on it.

I remember near the end of our conversation on the JREF link way above, that he was convinced that someone had replaced chips he had originally received, with new ones that would not reproduce the results he was looking for.

The mindset that would rather blame it on "government set up" then simple error, well, it is amazing to say the least.

TAM:)

[16.5]

"From what I understand, leaflets distributed in New York have prompted those still in possession of the WTC dust to give it the pretext of health studies. We received by mail in Marseille 4 samples from 4 different people, one of them m'ayant contacted directly by email to ask if the dust was a danger to his health and had enough air upset when I explained to him that it was collecting evidence of an inside job (apparently I Gaffé and I was called to order by the organizer of this collection was explained to me that I was not supposed to be in direct contact with shippers)."

Is that an accurate translation? If so, that is outrageous. That is fraud, that is a crime, that is a complete betrayal of public trust.

If that is accurate, this whole study is completely and utterly worthless.

[Justin39640]

"From what I understand, leaflets distributed in New York have prompted those still in possession of the WTC dust to give it the pretext of health studies. We received by mail in Marseille 4 samples from 4 different people, one of them m'ayant contacted directly by email to ask if the dust was a danger to his health and had enough air upset when I explained to him that it was collecting evidence of an inside job (apparently I Gaffé and I was called to order by the organizer of this collection was explained to me that I was not supposed to be in direct contact with shippers)."

Is that an accurate translation? If so, that is outrageous. That is fraud, that is a crime, that is a complete betrayal of public trust.

If that is accurate, this whole study is completely and utterly worthless.

hmm that sounds odd though
i wonder if something was lost in the translation (as google translate does at times)

it sounds like a 3rd party was collecting the samples
but im not sure

maybe that email was what caused him to find out about the leaflets (just to be fair) but if he knew that from the onset it would be disgusting

[alienentity]

Jones and Harrit are disinfo agents? LOL! This is great!

This is actually nothing new - the fractures amongst various truther camps have produced this accusation before - particularly between Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Jim Fetzer and Dr. Steven Jones and/or their followers.

I look forward to the results of his study.

[Panoply_Prefect]

I think what he's saying is that Jones et al. have been deceived by fake nanothermite chips to hide the true way the towers were brought down, which he goes on to say might have been cold fusion.

What on earth would cold fusion have to do with 911?

[boloboffin]

What on earth would cold fusion have to do with 911?

Cold fusion was presumably used in some device to power the devices that... heck, I dunno. It's the French poster's speculation.

[Longfellow]

What on earth would cold fusion have to do with 911?

About the same as nanothermite has to do with 9/11.

[alienentity]

Here's what Frederic wrote in English:



T.A.M
My samples are full of chips which have nothing to do with the chips described in the articles. These are almost perfect doubles:
1) same appearance on one face : same red color!
2) same range of sizes
3) same composition: Carbon, oxygen, Iron, Aluminum, Silicium in the same proportion

almost because

1) Dont produce molten iron even when heated to more than 900°C
2) Have the same chemical composition after being heated to more than 900°C
3) Not double sided: red /red rather than red/shiny grey

According to the articles the red/grey chips should be numerous while in my articles the
red/red chips are more numerous...so i'm afraid there are only two possible ways for understanding this:

1) The red-gray chips were completely invented or the th truthers were provided with
fake samples to deceive them
2) My red-red chips were added and the genuine red/gray ones removed...

I dont know which way to understand these facts is the most paranoiac one...probably you know better than me.

To be Honest i should also follow a little bit the first paranoia way:

If 911 was an inside job, its not a problem to make the common citizen believe that Al Qaeda did it. If i were one of the perpetrators i could even travel and give conferences in the USA and in Europe with wonderful powerpoints (the architectes and ingeniers one for instance) and movies (for instance the italian movie: Zero) showing that 911 was an inside job, just for fun and to make money... indeed people are totally under control through the control of the medias. The important thing if you do that is to be sure that there are enough (not so many) absurd or silly claims in your presentation so that any honest expert in the concerned fields can explain why your are just an idiot conspirationist....and you can be sure the subject will remain as exotic as the UFOs, for long...

Much more problematic is to also deceive intelligence agencies from other countries : impossible ! these have their experts and the collapse of WTC7 is much more than sufficient to convince them that there is something wrong with the official story. But another kind of deception can take place which goal would be to hide the exact type of secret technology that was used to bring down the towers. Nanothermite or another technology based on the understanding kept secret for years by militaries of the new physics behind cold fusion for example?

Many features, in particular pure iron spheroids which crackled surfaces cooled down very rapidly are also commonly seen in experiments involving very powerful electric discharges ( The new physics that occurs there is the same as behind the historical electrolysis experiment that have shown extra production of heat: in these micro-discharges are also involved, in the palladium porous structure). These discharges produce what is often called "strange radiations": nobody (at least among searchers working in public labs today) understands this physics and these objects. These were discovered by many searchers independently all over the world and given different names (ectons, micro lighting-balls, Electrum Validum...and of course strange radiations) : much bigger ones are also naturally produced by much more powerful electric discharges in the atmosphere: lighting balls.
Some time ago i believed powerful discharges was used at the WTC using capacitors. The discharges may have been triggered by the piezoelectric effect: as you can see in the USGS data: the girder coatings have Titanium but also Baryum and strontium and i think its very hard to understand the high levels of baryum and strontium (quite the same) in these coatings.
As you know high capacitors commonly use baryum titanate often mixed with strontium titanate. My understanding for a long time was that the weakening and superficial melting of the column was obtained thanks to these discharges and the very large fluxes of the strange radiations they produced heating them very efficiently. But i progressively gave up the idea because of the discoveries of nanothermite red/gray chips.
The problem is now that i cant find them so i can suspect again that nanothermite was completely invented to hide the other technology which secret is believed crucial (as you probably know it was demonstrated by a Russian team that the half life of Uranium radionucleides is modified in presence of the strange radiations so you can imagine why it is kept secret!).

Nanothermite or something else?:
For anybody in the USA reading my post and whishing to understand better what happened on 911, it's very important to realize that checking the red/gray chips hypothesis is something anybody can do at home: its straightforward!

If you personally know a new_Yorker who still has WTC dust contact him (independently, discretely, no email , no phone). Then you just need a small magnet , a needle, a 50 dollars microscope and a kiln (or know someone who is doing pottery or ceramics). Find the red/gray chip yourself, heat it yourself in your kiln, check yourself the appearance of the metallic microspheres at less than 500°C...and help me do the same.
This is crucial to help me choose between my two paranoias !!

best

Fred






De : Frédéric Henry-Couannier <fhenryco@yahoo.fr>
À : Gregg Roberts <groberts@ae911truth.org>; Frank Legge <flegge@iinet.net.au>
Cc : harrit@fys.ku.dk; Steven <hardevidence@gmail.com>; Keogh Justin <justin.keogh@gmail.com>; Larsen Brad <brlbu@sisna.com>; Ryan Kevin <kncryan@msn.com>; A Carson <azcarson@gmail.com>; Shane Geiger <shane.geiger@gmail.com>
Envoyé le : Mercredi, 17 Juin 2009, 11h10mn 59s
Objet : Re : Re : Problem !

The most recent sample i received with nothing but red-only chips (or may be red/orange as Keven says) inside was from Steve White (collected in a loft at 18 Warren street).

I'm wondering how many among you did themselves the crucial ignition test and have noticed themselves the appearance of iron microspheres...please clarify

Best

F

[beachnut]

Unless I'm mistaken, he's a poster here: http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=31619

Regardless of his biases, a proper scientific study will soon put to rest any and all of Dr. Jones's nonsense. I'll be interested to see his final results. Right...

It is also possible that Thermobarics did the job but the physics of cold fusion unexpectedly occurred in high powerful electric discharges used to trigger the explosions or the thermitic reactions used to weaken the steel columns. http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf (http://www.darksideofgravity.com/marseille_gb.pdf) It is possible; but... ("it" being rational, not nonsensical tripe)

The secret technology to bring down WTC7 was fire; most of us have a legacy, thousands of years, understanding the secret of fire. A few challenged, the 911 truth cult, have not discovered the secret.

WHAT??? Cold fusion did it and Jones missed it; no, Jones made up thermite nonsense to cover his collusion with the terrorists. The molten nut case science is flowing freely 7 years after the collapse...

[Dave Rogers]

Here's what Frederic wrote in English:

Some time ago i believed powerful discharges was used at the WTC using capacitors. The discharges may have been triggered by the piezoelectric effect: as you can see in the USGS data: the girder coatings have Titanium but also Baryum and strontium and i think its very hard to understand the high levels of baryum and strontium (quite the same) in these coatings.
As you know high capacitors commonly use baryum titanate often mixed with strontium titanate.

Just as an aside: those who saw Kevin Ryan's bizarre exercise in connect-the-dots (Stratesec tried but failed to supply security equipment to the WTC, somebody who works for Stratesec used to work for NASA, NASA sometimes uses thermite and explosives, therefore Stratesec smuggled explosives and thermite into the WTC) might be interested in the similarities in reasoning here. In effect, this is the scientific equivalent: barium and strontium have been seen as elements, but there's no evidence they were present as barium titanate or strontium titanate, and even less that these substances were present as the dielectric layer in any kind of capacitor. To deduce, therefore, from the presence of barium and strontium that electrical discharges from capacitors were involved in the collapse of the WTC towers is a line of reasoning that's missing virtually all the necessary steps.

Dave

[sleahead]

Would the absence of nitrogen peaks in the spectra provided by the Jones paper and the Couannier paper constitute a negative result for test for conventional explosive residue? I ask because I came across this troofer's blog (http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/niels-harrit-is-a-weasel/). He's no fan of the nanothermite hypothesis and wants Jones to test his dust for explosive residue.

He writes:


Hey Steven and Neils, I got an idea: why not test for the exact kind of explosive residue that the controlled demolition industry ACTUALLY USES? Hey, there’s a concept. You know, the kind of tests that NIST and FEMA report that they DIDN’T run? The kind of test that you yourselves also admit you DIDN’T run? The kind of test I specifically ASKED you to run, not once but TWICE now in private communications? And the VERY kinds of tests you yourselves suggest SOMEONE ELSE RUNS in your recent ******** “thermetic material” paper?

You know, THOSE tests. That’s an idea, huh? The kind of tests that Greg Roberts told me in an email that he DIDN’T want to run because a negative result might hurt the Truth movement. Those tests.


Given that for some time now Jones' hypothesis has been that both a thermite variant AND conventional explosives were used, he has a point. Nice to get confirmation in his penutimate sentence that the Troof Movement leaders ares not interested in the truth.

[WTC Dust]

Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!

[16.5]

Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!

WOOT! Indeed!

Did you pick the cigarette butts out of your otherwise pristine sample?

[DGM]

Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!
Good luck.

Friendly advice. Try to keep your clothes on in public.


;)

[alienentity]

Good luck.

Friendly advice. Try to keep your clothes on in public.


;)

Actually the French don't mind nudity, they get offended more by Niqabs (Muslim headcoverings) :p

Y'know, Tracy, it would make sense to send some of your dust to an independent, impartial lab as well. Couannier is as partisan as they come..in favour of the whole 9/11 Conspiracy™ baggage, that is.

[Justin39640]

Hello, everyone? It's me again, and guess where I am? In London! Woot! On my way to Marseilles, France to try and contact Fred in person. He was looking for dust, and I've got dust. Actually, if you remember, it's a foam. Air bubbles and such. Wish me luck!

I take it there will be a pit stop in Amsterdam? Bring me back some brownies! :D (jk)

[WTC Dust]

Some of the dust I discovered had cigarette butts, but I didn't collect that dust. The dust I collected was free of cigarette butts. :-)

[WTC Dust]

Frederick Henry-Couannier, Judy Wood, and Tracy Blevins are the three scientists who are proposing a non-thermitic process of WTC destruction that resulted in a cool dust cloud. So there's three of us. :-) I'd say 3 Ph.D.s beats 1,000 architects in this matter, especially since what was seen on 9/11 was advanced, secret technology. In this case, knowing how to build and destroy buildings doesn't help. What was required was research science, not general knowledge of building construction.

[WTC Dust]

Actually the French don't mind nudity, they get offended more by Niqabs (Muslim headcoverings) :p

Y'know, Tracy, it would make sense to send some of your dust to an independent, impartial lab as well. Couannier is as partisan as they come..in favour of the whole 9/11 Conspiracy™ baggage, that is.

If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.

So I'm not doing that, yet. I'm working on a new method that will result in a proper analysis of the dust that leads to the real mechanism of destruction.

What does finding silicon in the dust tell you? NOTHING. Because windows are made of glass. Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence, and spectral analysis has not provided any real insight into this process to date.

[16.5]

If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.

So I'm not doing that, yet. I'm working on a new method that will result in a proper analysis of the dust that leads to the real mechanism of destruction.

What does finding silicon in the dust tell you? NOTHING. Because windows are made of glass. Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence, and spectral analysis has not provided any real insight into this process to date.

So you are not a fan of the whole scientific method, huh?

[alienentity]

If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.

So I'm not doing that, yet. I'm working on a new method that will result in a proper analysis of the dust that leads to the real mechanism of destruction.

What does finding silicon in the dust tell you? NOTHING. Because windows are made of glass. Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence, and spectral analysis has not provided any real insight into this process to date.

Tracy, that excuse is really lame. I'm disappointed at your attempts to dodge good science and pursue pseudo-science well out of your areas of expertise. You're no different and certainly no better than the likes of Steven Jones, for example.

The definitive test for nanothermite has already been explained on this forum several times; if you wanted to really strike a blow to the heart of your competitors you'd perform those tests.

I see that you have no interest in a thorough elimination of the competing theories. I guess you think you already 'know' what happened. ;) That's what makes you a truther.

[W.D.Clinger]

Frederick Henry-Couannier, Judy Wood, and Tracy Blevins are the three scientists who are proposing a non-thermitic process of WTC destruction that resulted in a cool dust cloud. So there's three of us. :-) I'd say 3 Ph.D.s beats 1,000 architects in this matter, especially since what was seen on 9/11 was advanced, secret technology. In this case, knowing how to build and destroy buildings doesn't help. What was required was research science, not general knowledge of building construction.
AE911T's list of 1500+ architects and engineers includes about 48 PhDs.

Using your own highlighted criterion to choose between those two arguments from specious authority, your argument loses.

[alienentity]

AE911T's list of 1500+ architects and engineers includes about 48 PhDs.

Using your own highlighted criterion to choose between those two arguments from specious authority, your argument loses.

Tracy's hubris is breathtaking. ETA almost as impressive as her poor logic.

[excaza]

Ugh. Not this again.

Dusty, remember your demonstration that conclusively proved your samples aren't magnetic?

[NoahFence]

Big deal. The real question is how the dust came into existence,

I'm thinking massive collapse of a steel and concrete structure with untold amounts of gypsum wallboard inside may have contributed to it.

Also, thousands of computer keyboards with bits of crackers in between the keys probably contributed. Hope those first responders weren't allergic to peanuts.

[WildCat]

Frederick Henry-Couannier, Judy Wood, and Tracy Blevins are the three scientists.
Evidence? I've seen nothing even remotely scientific from any of them. Maybe Judy Wood was at one time, before her unfortunate brain injury.

[Sunstealer]

If I sent my dust to an impartial laboratory, and then this laboratory performed the same experiments already performed on the dust, then the science would not be advanced in any way. Just another data point.What experiments did you perform on the dust and where are the results?

[excaza]

What experiments did you perform on the dust and where are the results?

Here's some light reading, culminating in the video demonstration that completely refuted most of her claims:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189421

[NoahFence]

Here's some light reading, culminating in the video demonstration that completely refuted most of her claims:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189421

Truthers have had the same zero respect for real life for a while, huh?

What a blissfully ignorant person. "Nobody but me saw the dust"?

WHAAT??!?

[excaza]

Don't forget her iconic picture of the ceremony a year later at GZ where it was 'still fuming,' even though it's blatantly obvious that the wind just kicked up dust right when the picture was being taken. Can't remember what page that was on.

[NoahFence]

Normal people aren't highly educated and creative, like Dr. Wood and me.
:wink8::hit:

[NoahFence]

I can't even submit an article to the Journal of 9/11 Truth because they are stuck on thermite, not that I consider that to be a legitimate journal, because I don't.

twoofers fighting twoofers.

Comedy gold.

[alphahelix]

I was started to get bored reading the likes of ergo, 7 and clayton,

It seems the "real" entertainer has returned for an encore :D

[NoahFence]

I hear ya. Dr. Dust is a real doozy

[Sunstealer]

Here's some light reading, culminating in the video demonstration that completely refuted most of her claims:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189421I'm well aware of that nonsense. I had wtcdust on ignore for the most part. She's an irrelevance; only here to entertain us.

[Justin39640]

Truthers have had the same zero respect for real life for a while, huh?

What a blissfully ignorant person. "Nobody but me saw the dust"?

WHAAT??!?

She also admitted she wasn't in NYC that day. IIRC she didn't get back till Thursday or Friday.

[16.5]

She also admitted she wasn't in NYC that day. IIRC she didn't get back till Thursday or Friday.

And her "dust" is insulation.

[Justin39640]

And her "dust" is insulation.

C'mon. We all know when you pass electricity through steel it turns to foam! :D

[beachnut]

C'mon. We all know when you pass electricity through steel it turns to foam! :D
... if it passes through the path of least resistance ...

[TruthersLie]

... if it passes through the path of least resistance ...

into its own footprint at freefall acceleration

[excaza]

from space

[TruthersLie]

from space

caused by HAARP

[WTC Dust]

So you are not a fan of the whole scientific method, huh?

Nope. I just don't like collaborating with scientists who do valueless work that essentially repeats the work of others. BORING!

Sending a sample of dust to someone who's going to do the same ole thing to it is not helpful at this time.

[WTC Dust]

Tracy, that excuse is really lame. I'm disappointed at your attempts to dodge good science and pursue pseudo-science well out of your areas of expertise. You're no different and certainly no better than the likes of Steven Jones, for example.

The definitive test for nanothermite has already been explained on this forum several times; if you wanted to really strike a blow to the heart of your competitors you'd perform those tests.

I see that you have no interest in a thorough elimination of the competing theories. I guess you think you already 'know' what happened. ;) That's what makes you a truther.

Cutting edge scientists like me do not tend to follow the instructions of non-scientists when deciding what work needs to be done.

[WTC Dust]

AE911T's list of 1500+ architects and engineers includes about 48 PhDs.

Using your own highlighted criterion to choose between those two arguments from specious authority, your argument loses.

How many of these Ph.D.s have WTC dust? Steven Jones and crew do not count, because their samples have already been retested by an independent researcher (Frederick H-C).

Fred has already tested the very same dust samples that Steven Jones studied, only Fred found no evidence of thermite.

[twinstead]

Cutting edge scientists like me do not tend to follow the instructions of non-scientists when deciding what work needs to be done.

Ah, an arrogant conspiracy theorist. That's a new one. :rolleyes:

Well for a "cutting edge scientist" you sure have completely rationalized your unwillingness to corroborate your findings with other scientists to yourself, haven't you?

[WTC Dust]

Tracy's hubris is breathtaking. ETA almost as impressive as her poor logic.

I, myself, have examined Steven Jones' WTC dust. Can he say the same thing about my dust? No. Will he ever be able to say the same thing about my dust? Probably not. I can't imagine what would transpire that I would share my samples with such a bad scientist with such a poor reputation.

I'll share my data with his group, but I'm unlikely to share my samples. They've already botched it, and I have no trust in their scientific capacity. I'm pursuing a collaboration with a few scientists at a university in the UK. Stay tuned!

[WTC Dust]

Here's some light reading, culminating in the video demonstration that completely refuted most of her claims:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189421

Ha. Why are you paying such close attention to me? ;-):D

[excaza]

For the same reason people stare at train wrecks.

[WTC Dust]

She also admitted she wasn't in NYC that day. IIRC she didn't get back till Thursday or Friday.

Justin: How soon after the WTC attacks did you make it to Ground Zero? It took me almost 72 hours to get there and begin making my observations. Critical things happened during this time period, one of which was the extensive cleaning of the streets from all the fuming foamy dust that used to be the WTC. They didn't get it all, though. You could see it deposited on all the window ledges from the second story and above of the nearby buildings.

[WTC Dust]

Ah, an arrogant conspiracy theorist. That's a new one. :rolleyes:

Well for a "cutting edge scientist" you sure have completely rationalized your unwillingness to corroborate your findings with other scientists to yourself, haven't you?

Steven Jones and crew are not scientists "like myself". They are idiots or criminals.

[excaza]

Ah yes, this mystical magnetic foam of unknown material composition that is neither magnetic nor a foam. And you have the gall to call other people bad scientists. :rolleyes:

[WTC Dust]

Ah, an arrogant conspiracy theorist. That's a new one. :rolleyes:

Well for a "cutting edge scientist" you sure have completely rationalized your unwillingness to corroborate your findings with other scientists to yourself, haven't you?

Besides, why do you think I've come to Europe, silly boy? I've talked to two scientists in two different countries and am pursuing scientific collaborations with both of them. Just not Steven Jones. He has already proven himself to be an utter failure of a scientist, and I'll have nothing to do with him, except to bust his butt in a debate, when I get the chance.

[WTC Dust]

Also, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You won't find anything from me regarding anything like a conspiracy theory, except on the subject of 9/11. And you wouldn't even be hearing anything about 9/11, had anyone else gotten the right answer. I was patient. I waited a long time and searched high and low to find a definitive explanation of what destroyed the World Trade Center that matched my independent, direct observation of the aftermath. First it was only Judy Wood who was talking sense. Now it's Fred H-C. All told, that's exactly three scientists on this planet who are on the right track. I hubrisly include myself in as one of the third scientists (Ph.D. in biomedical sciences and all), but again, I wouldn't have been doing this had other people gotten it right. I'd rather be legalizing pot.

[WTC Dust]

Ah yes, this mystical magnetic foam of unknown material composition that is neither magnetic nor a foam. And you have the gall to call other people bad scientists. :rolleyes:

Fred H-C saw my video. He says it's magnetic. And foams are solids with air pockets, right? :D

[excaza]

Fred H-C saw my video. He says it's magnetic.
Then he's as insane as you are. The video shows, irrefutably, that the material you have is not magnetic. You were fanning it with your hand, it wasn't interacting with the magnet at all.

And foams are solids with air pockets, right? :D
By that definition, everything is a foam. Try again.

Also, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You won't find anything from me regarding anything like a conspiracy theory, except on the subject of 9/11.
So you're not a conspiracy theorist, you're just a conspiracy theorist. Makes perfect sense.

First it was only Judy Wood who was talking sense.
Good joke.

Besides, why do you think I've come to Europe, silly boy?
Because you're insane and enjoy wasting money?

I've talked to two scientists in two different countries
Two scientists? Look out!

and am pursuing scientific collaborations with both of them.
You're demonstrably incapable of accomplishing anything scientific.

He has already proven himself to be an utter failure of a scientist
As have you, and it's on video too!

[16.5]

Justin: How soon after the WTC attacks did you make it to Ground Zero? It took me almost 72 hours to get there and begin making my observations. Critical things happened during this time period, one of which was the extensive cleaning of the streets from all the fuming foamy dust that used to be the WTC. They didn't get it all, though. You could see it deposited on all the window ledges from the second story and above of the nearby buildings.

huh, how did the cigarette butts get in there then?

[NoahFence]

Nope. I just don't like collaborating with scientists who do valueless work that essentially repeats the work of others. BORING!

Sending a sample of dust to someone who's going to do the same ole thing to it is not helpful at this time.

You've heard the term "confirmation", no?

Generally, it takes at least two people to do that.

[NoahFence]

I, myself, have examined Steven Jones' WTC dust. Can he say the same thing about my dust? No

Uh...
didn't all the dust come from the same place?

(just as an aside, thanks for the entertainment)

[NoahFence]

Also, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You won't find anything from me regarding anything like a conspiracy theory, except on the subject of 9/11.

So you're not a conspriacy theorist, aside from when you're talking about a conspiracy theory.

Okee doke.

[NoahFence]

Fred H-C saw my video. He says it's magnetic. And foams are solids with air pockets, right? :D

He said it was magnetic by looking at a video.... ugh.

Judy Wood is a moonbat. There is no such thing as a directed energy weapon capable of destroying three world trade center buildings, causing massive damage to the Pentagon and downing a commercial airliner.

[NoahFence]

The World Trade Center did not collapse. It was turned into dust while it was standing there, and then the dust fell to the ground.

oi vey....

[twinstead]

oi vey....

Oi vey indeed. That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen on a sig

[NoahFence]

...and it only goes to reinforce yours

[excaza]

I'm still hoping that this is all some elaborate psychology research experiment.

[twinstead]

...and it only goes to reinforce yours

Indeed ;)

[Grassy Knowlington]

..... Just not Steven Jones. He has already proven himself to be an utter failure of a scientist, and I'll have nothing to do with him, except to bust his butt in a debate, when I get the chance.

What would your arguments be that would 'bust his butt'?

[WildCat]

Cutting edge scientists like me
:dl:

[Sabretooth]

Soooo....WTCD has had two people check her dust...and then...??

Two people in ten years and you still have no idea what it is? Good job... :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

They are in possession of reverse-engineered alien stealth demolition technology--no wonder they are having trouble analyzing it

[alienentity]

Nope. I just don't like collaborating with scientists who do valueless work that essentially repeats the work of others. BORING!

Sending a sample of dust to someone who's going to do the same ole thing to it is not helpful at this time.

This appears to be a standard cop-out. IIRC Couannier performed much the same tests as the Jones/Harrit team, which essentially repeated the work of others.

Not to mention that repeating the work of others IS the main function of peer science.

Apart from all your dodges (too numerous to recount here) what is your physical theory of the formation of your dust samples? If you are proposing an alternative physics model, can you demonstrate that model either experimentally or with mathematics?

If you cannot demonstrate it thru either direct experimentation or competent mathematics, how is your idea more valid or credible than the rantings of the Jones/Harrit gang? At least they've published their work and gone thru some kind of peer review.

If you do not respect them, why behave even more poorly and avoid subjecting your own work to impartial peer review? It seems as though you're afraid to venture outside a narrow band of DEW conspiracy theorists. Maybe you're not as confident in your ideas as you would have us believe..... (and I wouldn't blame you for that. First piece of free advice is to avoid Dr Judy Wood like the plague - trust me, she's a moonbat and grossly incompetent at what she is attempting. But it's your life to waste..)

[ElMondoHummus]

Well, the purpose of having independent researchers look at the stuff wouldn't to be to have them replicate the DSC and EDX tests. That would be dumb by any measure. The purpose would be for them to use analytical methods that would actually reveal structure, such as X-ray Diffraction or X-ray Wavelength Dispersive Spectroscopy, for example. That way, nobody, whether "debunker" or advocate, would have any rhetorical wiggle room inherent in the subtleties of the proper interpretations of the current data. You wouldn't be simply working from a list of constituent elements and general physical characteristics, you'd have an output that says unambiguously "the aluminum is free" or "the aluminum is bound and you're looking at aluminosillicates".

Not that it isn't known already. Sunstealer has already (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694) very well shown what the material is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658), as well as what flaws were made in the analysis (a third example: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6959549&postcount=536). In my paragraph above, I'm not saying that the material's identity is in doubt, not in the least bit. Rather, I'm saying that woo peddlers in general (including 9/11 conspiracy peddlers here) like to exploit the understandable ignorance that most in the general population have of topics such as spectroscopy, and physical/analytical chemistry, and set forth flawed analyses as if they're legitimate alternative possibilities. It's easy to gloss over and bypass the explanation given that clearly shows the associations between the silicon and aluminum (the first image in this post, plus the posted explanation (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4659658#post4659658)), but it's a bit hard to ignore an output that even more clearly shows that the aluminum isn't free. Especially in conjunction with the things Sunstealer has pointed out in the already existent evidence.

So no, it'd be dumb to replicate experiments. All you'd end up with is yet another, identical list of elements present, a DSC exotherm, and a few micrographs. That wouldn't actually settle the question, since it'd just repeat what Jones and Harrit published as data. I'm already certain enough that the DSC exotherm is accurate and that there's no manipulation of the EDX spectra or micrographs because there'd be no need to mess with those. The deception by Jones, Harrit, and the rest is in the interpretation of that data, not the data itself. Instead, let them put their money where their mouths are, and allow the dust to be analyzed by alternate spectographic methods. If they're confident they're right :rolleyes: there should be no objection to this.

[Gaspode]

Discussion on magnetic thermite and stuff split to new thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=212681).