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

[ConspiracyKiller]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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

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

Anyone know?

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

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

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

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

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

Bring on the science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[T.A.M.]

Quote:

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

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

[ConspiracyKiller]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

The Jones Paper, page 17

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

[T.A.M.]

How do you arrive at this?

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

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

TAM

[boloboffin]

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

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

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

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

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

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

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

[T.A.M.]

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

TAM

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm actually a bit sorry that none of this was ever made clear back in 2006 when some posters, myself included when I started posting on the SLC forum, brought this up. Peer review is an attempt to maintain the quality of the publication, and an attempt to ensure that no glaring mistakes come through. Unfortunately, Bentham Open is not a valid, respectable source. It could be. It has the potential to be. But the journal damages it's credibility through the practices that R.Mackey has highlighted several times, and that Pipirr linked to. Open access journals in general are a great idea; the way Bentham is currently operating is destroying that. And Jones completely glosses over that in his attempted defense of his publication in Bentham open.

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

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

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

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

[alienentity]

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

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

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

Methinks not very probable.

[T.A.M.]

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

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

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

hmmmmmm

TAM

Edit:

Two formulations for Zinc Yellow:

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

[ConspiracyKiller]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

How do you arrive at this?

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

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

TAM

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

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

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

[alienentity]

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

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

It doesn't add up.

[boloboffin]

Zinc Chromate - ZnCrO4

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

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

/sigh.

It must be homeopathic therm*te!

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

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

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

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

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

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

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

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

TAM

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by orphia nay

It must be homeopathic therm*te!




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

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w...painttable.gif

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

TAM

[ElMondoHummus]

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

[Sunstealer]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

@Sunstealer

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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

Here we disagree.

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

TAM

[ConspiracyKiller]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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

TAM

Yes, Thank you

[T.A.M.]

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

Quote:

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

From page 17 of the paper.

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

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

TAM

[alienentity]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16.5]

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

No?

Really?

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

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

[ConspiracyKiller]

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mark4mark]

Originally Posted by alienentity

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

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

[16.5]

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

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

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

The announcement was calculated to encourage rapid research.

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

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

What a fraud.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by mark4mark

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

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

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

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

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

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

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

[T.A.M.]

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

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

TAM

[Crungy]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

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

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

TAM

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

[ConspiracyKiller]

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

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

[boloboffin]

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

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

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

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

Zinc Compounds - 2.98% by weight

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

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

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

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

You are not a skeptic; you are a gullible believer of lies produced by Dr Jones. He made up the thermite scenario and his latest smoking gun was used last year. Read his first paper and with but a first grade education bag of skills, you will with a little research and some logic see he has a failed delusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lenbrazil]

A couple of unrelated points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Galileo

What you need to know about "Peer-review"

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

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

[16.5]

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

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

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

[AZCat]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

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

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

[J. Edward Tremlett]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

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

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

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

[T.A.M.]

Originally Posted by ConspiracyKiller

@Sunstealer & T.A.M.

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

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

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

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

TAM