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

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Galileo

Argue the evidence.

typoisThe evidence, to a person with proper credentials to eval;uate it, looks like p[aint chips.

There is no indication that the chips were ever anything other than a paint-thin layer of somethinmg.

The authorities you cite are know clowns.

Buh-bye.

[stateofgrace]

Originally Posted by Galileo

Mods:

Please move this to the mental pygmies section.

The people here have no interest in rational or scientific discussion.

I am very disappointed in the quality of the James Randi forum.

Mods I agree with the reincarnation of Galileo who excuses Al Quada and accuses innocent people of mass murder with zero evidence, let’s move this nonsense to a more suitable place.

[dtugg]

Dubya is so evil that not only does he pull off 9/11, he eats kittens alive.

[RedIbis]

Let's head off some of the potshots that have been fired off in this thread already.

1) It's not a vanity press. Here's the peer review process:

Quote:

REVIEWING AND PROMPTNESS OF PUBLICATION: All manuscripts submitted for publication will be immediately subjected to peer-reviewing, usually in consultation with the members of the Editorial Advisory Board and a number of external referees. Authors may, however, provide in their Covering Letter the contact details (including e-mail addresses) of four potential peer reviewers for their paper. Any peer reviewers suggested should not have recently published with any of the authors of the submitted manuscript and should not be members of the same research institution.
All peer-reviewing will be conducted via the Internet to facilitate rapid reviewing of the submitted manuscripts. Every possible effort will be made to assess the manuscripts quickly with the decision being conveyed to the authors in due course.

2) Check the advisory board. It's not a bunch of kooks, but credentialed, international scientists.

3) The second author is Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, current BYU faculty. And although Jones has been smeared pretty good here, it's a solid list of scientists with him.

4) Read the paper. I'm going through it now and it's quite interesting and thoroughly sourced. It's certainly worthy of productive discussion.

[Dog Town]

Originally Posted by Galileo

What I say is backed up by peer reviewed science.

Ok...prove it!

Don't worry, we know you can't!

[defaultdotxbe]

i wonder how many truthers realize thermite is just rust and aluminum

[Shalamar]

It depends on the conclusions. SO they found Iron Oxide, and Aluminum.

Thermite could be one example, but the lack of other evidence to support it diminishes the claim.

The proper process is, for ANY good scientist is: What ELSE could that evidence conclude?

[Mangoose]

Is Jones pussyfooting the claim of finding barium in the red chips?

In the sections on the spectometry research, there is not a whiff about barium. I checked all the figures and the text, nothing about Ba. Now, if they DID find barium in those red chips, wouldn't that be mentioned? In fact, wouldn't that constitute key evidence in support of the hypothesis (well, at least insofar as thermate is concerned)?

Then in the penultimate section about avenues for further research, Jones et al. says this in passing:

Originally Posted by Jones et al.

We have observed that some chips have additional elements such as potassium, lead, barium and copper. Are these significant, and why do such elements appear in some red chips and not others? An example is shown in Fig. (31) which shows significant Pb along with C, O, Fe, and Al and displays multiple red and gray layers. (p. 28)

This is the first mention of barium in the paper. And then in the conclusions, the authors again say: "The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics: 1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper" (p. 29). There it is again, barium, although nothing about it was mentioned in the body of the paper. Has Jones elsewhere made more definite claims about barium?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Shalamar

It depends on the conclusions. SO they found Iron Oxide, and Aluminum.

Thermite could be one example, but the lack of other evidence to support it diminishes the claim.

The proper process is, for ANY good scientist is: What ELSE could that evidence conclude?

They address that on pg 27:

"7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint?"

[16.5]

RedIbis:

1) It's not a vanity press. Here's the peer review process:

Are you freaking kidding me? Did you read this very freaking thread?? It has been established that Bentham is not a legitimate journal, is pay for publish and worse, their peer review process is a joke.

Also a joke is Jones and these other nitwits. Hey Red, quick question: how does gravity work? And in light of how gravity works, how does "super thermite" work horizontally?

Man, truthers are freaking morons.

[Sunstealer]

Wow, they found red paint. This has already been discussed at JREF - use the search function and you'll find the thread and then you'll find my post where I prove that it's red paint.

[UNLoVedRebel]

The entire premise is ridiculous. The WTC towers collapsed because of an unspecified amount of an unspecified explosive plus thermite used with an unspecified technology to cut the columns horizontally, and the only way to uncover the mighty plot is to put some paint chips under a microscope.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Wow, they found red paint. This has already been discussed at JREF - use the search function and you'll find the thread and then you'll find my post where I prove that it's red paint.

Sunstealer, I'm not positive this is paint. Then again, I'm not sure if there are classes of silicon based paints that are not soluble in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).

There are other classes of anticorrosive coatings. I wonder if that's what this could be that. I simply don't know enough about the composition of the towers to know if any were applied to the steel.

BTW, while I have you here: On p. 13 of this new paper, there's some X-EDS spectroscopy that Jones et. al. is claming demonstrates that the FE to O ratio is 2 to 3, therefore validating the notion that this is indeed Fe₂O₃. I haven't gone back to look at your posts regarding interpreting EDX, so I'm not sure how solid this identification is (my undergrad work had me do CGs and NMRs, and that was years ago, so I don't even remember much of that). Does that specific point seem solid to you?

Thanks.

[ElMondoHummus]

Also (sorry to keep picking your brain, Sunstealer): Am I missing something, or is there indeed no work establishing that there are stochiometrically correct ratios of Aluminum to Fe₂O₃? (*Sigh*...) I'll go back and reread it, but I don't think I see that. I'm of course subject to correction if I'm mistaken.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by Galileo

That is a stupid question. I am not going to call you stupid, but your question is stupid.

Which authority shall I bring it to, the JREF police?

You obviously have a plan to bring it to SOMEBODY, otherwise you would not be saying that our "days are numbered".

So who are you planning to show this evidence to?

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Sunstealer, I'm not positive this is paint. Then again, I'm not sure if there are classes of silicon based paints that are not soluble in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK).

There are other classes of anticorrosive coatings. I wonder if that's what this could be that. I simply don't know enough about the composition of the towers to know if any were applied to the steel.

BTW, while I have you here: On p. 13 of this new paper, there's some X-EDS spectroscopy that Jones et. al. is claming demonstrates that the FE to O ratio is 2 to 3, therefore validating the notion that this is indeed Fe₂O₃. I haven't gone back to look at your posts regarding interpreting EDX, so I'm not sure how solid this identification is (my undergrad work had me do CGs and NMRs, and that was years ago, so I don't even remember much of that). Does that specific point seem solid to you?

Thanks.

They haven't provided any figures or calculations nor said what the software package is for converting their qualitative data (the spectra) to a quantitative one which will then give you actual compounds present. So no they can't just say that the ratio is 3:2 but I'll check when I've got more time to digest the paper because they are clearly looking at proving aluminium powder iron III oxide. TBH if it's unreactive thermite then with the SEM they should be able to pickout individual particles of Aluminium and iron III oxide, instead we see some form of iron oxide and a spectra with Aluminium, Silicon and Oxygen in with distinct crystollographic shapes and they claim the Oxygen is on the surface of the aluminium (how they tell this I don't know).

I was expecting some proper analysis using XRD (x-ray diffraction) because this would then definitely give the compounds present and their amounts and prove once and for all what the chips are actually made of. They keep using EDS and whilst the graphs look pretty and fool those who don't have any experience they simply cannot be used for a quantitative analysis so their claims are pretty poor.

I'm actually interested in Figs 24-27 and Fig 8. On first looking at fig 8 along with the spectra the dark crystals and platelets looks like Kaolin/Kaolinite. Whilst the smaller brighter crystals look a bit like SiO₂ but they have EDS data showing predominantly Fe and O in those regions.

Note how in fig 25 they pick up Titanium which will almost certainly be TiO₂ which is a whitener and used in paint.

I'm sure that what gives the game away with regard to this material being red paint or potentially an anti-corrosion coating is the fact it's clearly dual layer. Could even be a primer with paint.

Themite is just a mix of fine iron oxide and aluminium powder (and sometimes Sulphur, Potassium Permanganate, Barium Nitrate). It won't form a dual layer because you require the mixture to be as well mixed as possible for it to work, it's effectively homogeneous.

It's late for me now, but I'll go over that paper a bit more closely to actually see what their claims are. You never know they could be right.

[metamars]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It's certainly worthy of productive discussion.

If this is true, how likely are you to get that, here? I would suggest taking the paper to your friendly, neighborhood university that has a Materials Science department (or two - you might find one group in the physics department, and another Materials Science department in the college of engineering.).

I haven't read any of the paper, but have seen photos of the chips. They struck me as far, far too regular to be paint chips. In any event, materials science is hardly my area of expertise.

Please direct any scientists you talk to, to the911forum.freeforums.org. The moderator there will not tolerate much abuse. Also, the comments tend to be substantive. Just like I don't think many scientists like to be insulted, I also don't think that they have a lot of time to waste.

Then, if you're so inclined, you can distill whatever pearls of wisdom qualified individuals have to say, and post the main points, here.

[Mercutio]

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

I have no expertise whatsoever on this, but every thermite video I have seen has used substantial amounts of thermite to attack a fairly small amount of metal. A paint-chip thickness seems... insignificant. Obviously, though, I could be wrong. Does anybody here know?

[16.5]

Originally Posted by metamars

If this is true, how likely are you to get that, here? I would suggest taking the paper to your friendly, neighborhood university that has a Materials Science department (or two - you might find one group in the physics department, and another Materials Science department in the college of engineering.).

I haven't read any of the paper, but have seen photos of the chips. They struck me as far, far too regular to be paint chips. In any event, materials science is hardly my area of expertise.

Please direct any scientists you talk to, to the911forum.freeforums.org. The moderator there will not tolerate much abuse. Also, the comments tend to be substantive. Just like I don't think many scientists like to be insulted, I also don't think that they have a lot of time to waste.

Then, if you're so inclined, you can distill whatever pearls of wisdom qualified individuals have to say, and post the main points, here.

Oh Hai Metamars. Ask the serious scientists over by your web site just how the Thermite cuts STEEL BEAMS horizontally.

So you are about half way through the beam and in complete defiance of the laws of gravity, instead of burning the metal it is laying right the hell on top of, it keeps going sideways to sever the beam.

THAT is some SUPER Thermite!

Can a brother get a laughing dog?

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by 16.5

Oh Hai Metamars. Ask the serious scientists over by your web site just how the Thermite cuts STEEL BEAMS horizontally.

So you are about half way through the beam and in complete defiance of the laws of gravity, instead of burning the metal it is laying right the hell on top of, it keeps going sideways to sever the beam.

THAT is some SUPER Thermite!

Can a brother get a laughing dog?

Oh thats an easy one,

Just ignore the effects of Gravity in every situation. Just like Heiwa does.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So. not only did the NWO manage to hide enough Super Thermite in the WTC buildings to cause them to collapse when it exploded, the was some left over? ³

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?

Absolutely not. The heat content of thermite per pound is several times less than gasoline or even paper. You'd do more damage to the steel columns by wallpapering over them and setting that on fire.

Thermite only provides an advantage if there's so much of it, and you can convince it to react so quickly, that it exceeds the heating caused by regular combustion, which is dependent on atmospheric oxygen and limits its rate. This requires much more than a "thin film." Try inches. Maybe more, it's hard to quantify since they've never actually produced a complete hypothesis.

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

Obviously, Dr. Jones and company are aware that there's more than one kind of paint, or else they wouldn't have suggested the mystery substance could be "paint."

I still say the stuff is paint. You'll note that, conspicuously absent from this paper, is any description of the baseline paint they used for comparison in their various tests. The fallacy, therefore, is one of hasty generalization. Some paint will surely dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone, but that doesn't mean it all will. Not all paints burn the same, either. And somebody check me on this, but I believe Viton -- and by inference, the "sol-gel" they talk about above -- would dissolve in MEK, so this test seems inadequate to test either baseline paint or the mystery sample.

I say it's paint because every property they detected is consistent with paint. Metallic pigments, check. Aluminum oxide coating on pigments, check. Ignition temperature, check. All we need to do is find a paint that (a) was plausibly used in the WTC, and (b) after years of drying resists solution in MEK. Shouldn't be too hard. I note that the paints used 40 years ago are quite unlike paint you could buy off the shelf today, thanks to environmental regulations, so I would be highly surprised if whatever unspecified paint they used was at all comparable.

Whatever the stuff is, though, Dr. Jones's results here clearly demonstrate that it isn't thermite. There are at least three mechanical and physical properties he's worked out here that prove it isn't thermite. That's even if we overlook that huge quantities of it would be needed to cause anything, etc. -- I'll let you guys spot them. It's quite hilarious.

Now, regarding Bentham. It's fun to slam Bentham, but let's be clear on one point: Just because it's in Bentham doesn't mean its conclusions are wrong. Those are indeed wrong, but don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Slamming the paper because it's in Bentham, however, strikes me as appropriate. This is because, as far as I know, all of the results and all of the argumentation in the paper is not new. The only new thing here, the only new event, is the act of publication itself. Since the publication is a sham, to put it mildly, this is fair game for criticism.

Here's another fun fact about Bentham: Just yesterday, they invited me to be an Editorial Board Member! oh, happy day. That e-mail went straight to trash, but after I read this I retrieved it. Here's a sample of their pitch:

Originally Posted by Bentham Open

Based on your eminent contributions in the field of space technology, we would like to consider your possible nomination to the Editorial Board Membership of the journal. As an editorial board member, you may be required to occasionally review research papers. To make sure the Editorial Board of the journal consists of potential productive scientists, it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal.

(Emphasis added)

Oh, my, what a laugh that gave me. They need me to submit and pay for papers (at a discount, natch) to verify that I'm a "potential productive scientist??" Why the heck are they extending the offer if I'm not? Why don't they look at my other publications to make this determination?

I participate in peer review all the time. Just last week I reviewed a paper for the ASME, and I'm not even a member there; I got hit up out of the blue for my actual contributions which were similar to the paper under consideration. Next week I'm going to AIAA Infotech to present, and our paper there was reviewed properly. This stunt Bentham is pulling is a scam. I have never run into anyone professionally associated with them, and if I do, it will lower my respect for them enormously.

Suffice to say, I rejected the offer. But, if the Truth Movement thinks Bentham's blessing is so important, then obviously they must also think, by virtue of the above endorsement from Bentham, I'm qualified to review this paper. I'd flunk it, for reasons expressed above.

Maybe Dr. Jones should join Bentham. He seems to like publishing there, and I imagine they'd offer him the discount as well.

[16.5]

"it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal."

OH. MY. STARS!

That is ridiculous!

[JamesB]

Quote:

7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

What the hell is the International Center for 9/11 Studies?

[applecorped]

That's where you send the checks.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Some paint will surely dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone, but that doesn't mean it all will.

Yes, this is correct. I'm finding "hints" pages telling painters to test small areas of painted surfaces with MEK to classify what kind of paint they're dealing with. Polyurethane-based paints in particular do not dissolve with MEK. Some epoxy paints, too, will resist but eventually will be dissolved.

I've been spending the past couple of hours reading what I can online (read: Superficial research, so let's not think it's anything profound) about polyurethane coatings, and surprise! Many anticorrosion coatings for steel are polyurethanes. This of course is far from being conclusive evidence that the "chips" in question are really anticorrosive coatings with some flecks of steel attached, but that's a possibility that none of Jones's experiments have eliminated. Indeed, none of them can eliminate them. So they're still an open possibility. Continuing in this vein, the significant "organic" material Jones keeps on talking about is may in fact not be the "sol-gel" he goes on about, but urethane(s).

Keep in mind that I'm not firm on that last possibility . I note no nitrogen peak on the EDX graphs, and cyanates are one of the components of urethane polymers, so I'd need Sunstealer to tell me if the lack of such a N peak falsifies my line of inquiry. Regardless, there are indeed classes of paint that do not dissolve in butanone, so Jones et. al. draw far too broad conclusions in their simple butanone-soaking experiment to completely eliminate paints, primers, or other sorts of anticorrosion-protective coatings.

[George152]

Originally Posted by Galileo

You fail to understand that these scientists found thermite. You lose.

The 'thermite' claim came from only one source and that is so discredited.
Jones is not and never was a scientist.
Steven E. Jones was a 20-year professor of physics until he lost his job for being wrong.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Now, regarding Bentham. It's fun to slam Bentham, but let's be clear on one point: Just because it's in Bentham doesn't mean its conclusions are wrong. Those are indeed wrong, but don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Correct. I only pointed this out because the argument put forth by Galileo implied that Bentham's peer review was validation of the paper's contents. That assertion betrayed a severe misunderstanding of what exactly peer review does, as well as completely ignores what you yourself discovered about their refereeing "process" last year. Yes, it ended up being a sort of a guilt-by-association argument, but those were the terms established by Galileo; he attempted to make a validation-by-association claim. So in that narrow sense, pointing out the flaw in Bentham's process was merely rebutting the argument at hand.

But you're right: Above and beyond the venue of publication, the paper must ultimately be judged by its contents. That's the real bottom line.

[dtugg]

You know, even if these hacks did prove that it the chips are super duper therm*te (which they didn't of course), I still don't think that there is any reason to believe that super duper therm*te was used to destroy the towers. Well, not unless you are a twoofer moron that wants to believe that. For me to consider that as even a remote possibility, they need to explain how this was supposedly done and prove that it could be done.

Explain how the many tons of super duper ther*te was smuggled into the buildings and attached to columns with nobody noticing. How all the super duper therm*te devices survived the plane crashes and subsequent fires. Explain why no very bright light was observed. And most importantly, they need to prove that super duper them*te can even cut through vertical columns like they claim.

I won't hold my breath.

[1337m4n]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

if the Truth Movement thinks Bentham's blessing is so important, then obviously they must also think, by virtue of the above endorsement from Bentham, I'm qualified to review this paper.

Have you forgotten the Truth Movement's super-power: the ability to conjure double-standards out of nothing?

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, just to put this paper to bed for tonight: There are some issues that, even ignoring the choice of venue or quality of the authors previous works, are bothersome. Mackey's already identified one of them: Their "elimination" of paint as a possibility. It's such a broad conclusion they drew, but it's made from far too limited an "experiment" to justify the breadth. If you want to eliminate paint as a possibility, handwaving past the fact that not all paints share the same solubility in the solvent selected suggests that it's more an experiment to give a fig leaf to believers than one to genuinely address the issue.

Another handwave is the one about the energy released by the chips. The writers make hay about the energy released by the chips compared to pure thermite, TNT, etc. (figure 30 in the paper). This is meant to be impressive, indicating that there's something about the material that suggests it's a specially engineered version of "nanothermite", and Jones et. al. really sells this up with their citations of the Gash et. al papers from Lawrence Livermore laboratories. This is an utterly silly - and very deliberate - handwave: if your substance is releasing more energy per mass from the chips than from a pure rust-aluminum redox reaction (compare chips 3 and 4 to the Al/Fe₂O₃ "Energy by mass" in fig. 30... and ignore the fact that the chips aren't consistent for now), then you're getting energy from another chemical reaction. You have less "thermite" reactant per gram due to the presence of other materials, yet you get more energy released. Something else above and beyond the aluminum/iron oxide redox is occuring. If this is a thermite sol-gel suspension, then you'd better think about eliminating the thermite, because you seem to be getting a better energy release from the medium your suspending your thermite in. Either that, or they're not seeing an Al/iron oxide redox reaction in their calorimeter tests to begin with. Either way, this doesn't argue that this is any kind of weaponized material.

I can go on - for example, the microspheres argument is reintroduced , and I still think there's something to be found by questioning whether the reactants were indeed found in the stoichiometrically correct ratios - but I want to watch Formula One news, then go to sleep. Enough's been said for now. Ryan's already made some pretty good points, I think I've added another one... the point is that this paper is, like previous ones, makes much noise but has little real validity. It's a pretty show of spectroscopy, but the conclusions are still too handwaved. In the absence of any gross effects on the steel, nothing they find or insinuate changes the narrative any.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

This has been covered before. Jones et. al. publishing in vanity publications is nowhere near the equivalent of publishing in established, legitimate scientific journals.

Vanity publications?

Sorry to hear about you reading disability. The name of the journal is: The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

The highly regarded scientist R. Mackey, who recently proved that a 757 traveling at 500 mph will not bounce off a building, has stated that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is just a vanity publication.

BTW: What are R. Mackey's qualifications? Does he have a PhD in physics?

[John Blonn]

Wait, am I still in 2009?

[BCR]

Originally Posted by Galileo

Argue the evidence.

Okay, I will. I am not a Chemist, but I have worked with optics since I rebuilt my first telescope at age 12. So I know a thing or two about spectral analysis. Below I have created a composite of the spectra from page 8 of Dr. Jones paper (Fig 7) for the red dust and the spectra for thermite.



The spectra for thermite extends only to 5 keV, so lets just talk about that segment shall we? Galileo, please show me the spectra signature for thermite in any of the four spectra presented by Dr. Jones. I am open to the evidence, but I simply don't see the 4.5 keV peak for titanium in any of the spectra above or elsewhere in his paper. Show me the thermite Galileo.

Perhaps Dr. Jones is talking another flavor of thermite. If so, please post the spectra for it so that we can compare.



Although there is similar spectra in the case of Fig 25 on page 18, the peaks are simply not proportionate. In thermite, titanium is 70% and aluminum around 25%. The 4.5 keV peak for titanium should be higher than the one for aluminum. That is not the case and as a matter of fact, the aluminum peak is significantly higher in Fig 25. I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the Fig 25 sample came from another source. I'm sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere.

Quote:

Titanium commercial aerospace requirements (including engine components such as blades, discs, rings and engine cases as well as airframe components including bulkheads, tail sections, landing gear, wing supports and fasteners) can account for a substantial proportion of the mass of modern aircraft, for example:

The four engines alone on the Airbus A380 use about 26 metric tons (57,000 pounds) of titaniumBoeing (including both the airframes and engines)

B787 – 134 metric tons (295,000 lb) of titanium
B777 – 59 metric tons (130,000 lb) of titanium
B747 – 45 metric tons (99,000 lb) of titanium
B737 – 18 metric tons (40,000 lb) of titanium

Please resolve this for us Galileo. Inquiring minds want to know.

[MIKILLINI]

Originally Posted by Galileo

It says in the report thay found unreacted thermite. You are wrong.

Unreacted thermite?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Galileo

You fail. They published in a legitimate scientific journal. They found proof of explosives. You lose.

Vanity journal, they paid to be published, you fell for lies. Pure junk. Lol big time as I polish off a cab and a zin you post lies. cool

It is friday go out on a date

[Panoply_Prefect]

Originally Posted by Christopher7

Vanity publications?

Sorry to hear about you reading disability. The name of the journal is: The Open Chemical Physics Journal.

The highly regarded scientist R. Mackey, who recently proved that a 757 traveling at 500 mph will not bounce off a building, has stated that the Open Chemical Physics Journal is just a vanity publication.

Well isn't it? Vanity press afaik means press that prints your work for money.

Originally Posted by Wiki

A vanity press or vanity publisher is a publishing house that publishes books at the author's expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_press

Quote:

An article-processing fee payable by the author/ author's institution applies for every accepted article, to cover the costs incurred by open access publication. Members of Bentham Open are entitled to discounted article - processing fees.

Bentham Open offers affordable article -processing fees ranking amongst the lowest as compared to those of other open access journal publishers.

http://www.bentham.org/open/IOJournals.htm

Souns like vanity press to me.

BTW; wasn't the name The Open Physical Chemistry journal?

EDIT: Nope. It appears Bentham has an Open Chemical Physics Journal as well as an Open Physical Chemistry journal,

[240-185]

Hmmmm, I'm bored.

Galileo, as you're convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, write here how exactly the towers fell, what are the evidences that the towers fell anormally (I've at least one: thermite), what happened exactly to the Pentagon and what happened in Shanksville.

Go Crackpot Index go!

[metamars]

Originally Posted by metamars

If this is true, how likely are you to get that, here? I would suggest taking the paper to your friendly, neighborhood university that has a Materials Science department (or two - you might find one group in the physics department, and another Materials Science department in the college of engineering.).

Anybody asking material scientists for criticism and comments, as I suggest, please also ask 2 questions:

1) what is the plausibility of a paint on nano-thermitic being used to create column weakness via asymmetric pressures resulting from asymmetric application? In other words, if you have a a spliced column, and you paint on nano-thermite on one side only, and then ignite it, will the differential in size between the heated side and the non-heated side cause the splice to crack? What if applied on one side of a 3.8 m length of unspliced column? Will the differential in size cause the column to noticeably bend?

BTW, the first mention I ever saw regarding the possibility of WTC tilts being similar to that of a bimetallic strip was by Dr. Greening, at physforum.com. If I understood him correctly, his line of inquiry assumed differential heating of entire segments of columns towards one side of the WTC towers, relative to heating of entire segments of columns on the opposite side. (Not differential heating of the same column segment.)

Also, this page gives the thermal expansion of the steel as 0.00000645in/in/deg F. For a 1 inch length of steel, increasing it's temperature to 2463 deg F ( = melting point of steel, < 4,500 deg F. of thermite), gets you only .016 inches. For cold steel, say 1/2 inch thick, that hardly seems like enough to cause failure. However, as the steel approaches it's melting point, it's yield point is going to drop. So, I guess the question should not just be about differential pressures due to differential thermal expansions, but about differential pressures relative to yield points, due to differential thermitic heating.


2) What is the plausibility that paint on nano-therm*te was used to provide an 'impressive' fireball, in the moments of first impact?

[Macgyver1968]

Originally Posted by JamesB

What the hell is the International Center for 9/11 Studies?

Does it list an address? I live in Dallas, and that zip code isn't to far from me. I could go check it out.