[Closed]Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center - Page 26

GregoryUrich · 8th April 2009, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sunstealer

Well I think that the elemental Al issue is still up for debate - They only say that they picked a region of the sample for the EDS and don't give and exact area nor the corresponding SEM photo. It might sound a bit picky, but i'd like conformation.

Isn't paramagnetism only present in a magnetic field? The material doesn't exhibit magnetic properties outside of the field. I'm just trying to see if it might explain why the elemental aluminium concentrated during the 55 hours in MEK with agitation.

Correct as far as I know. That's the difference between paramagnetic and magnetic materials (Dare I cite Wikipedia?). I think Dr. Greening only brought up magnetism related to why the chips were attracted to a magnet and wasn't thinking of the paramagnetic properties of Al.

lapman · 8th April 2009, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

dude, this is a science forum. There is no such word as "twoofer" in science. The paper is being supported by other experts, contrary to your false assertions. Show me a qualified scientist who have published an article that tears apart the paper. If you can't that makes you a liar as well.

False.

No qualified scientist would want to waste the $600 fee to get the rebuttal published or even have their name associated with a junk journal. Dr. Greening is a qualified scientist and Dr. Jones refuses to answer his questions or provide him with the data he asks for. Over a year ago, Dr. Greening asked for Jones' full EDS data. IIRC, it was never sent. Why is Jones keeping is data secret? Why is this ok with you? Why doesn't he disclose what paint he used for comparison?

GregoryUrich · 8th April 2009, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

dude, this is a science forum. There is no such word as "twoofer" in science. The paper is being supported by other experts, contrary to your false assertions. Show me a qualified scientist who have published an article that tears apart the paper. If you can't that makes you a liar as well.

The qualifications in this context are quite low due to all the inconsistancies that can be caught by laymen. Mackey is a published scientist (in real journals) and he has pointed out a number of problems.

I am only simple engineer but I can calculate the effects of the energy output which would require 100 times the thickness of the observed chips to do any damage. This alone is enough to rule out any sinister implications.

If you mean that someone needs to publish to challenge the paper you are simply appealing to authority, which, as we all know does not convince a critical thinker.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

AE911Truth is one of the organizations behind the paper, Galileo. They're listed on the front page.

Famous Authority Figure Endorses Own Paper

So what?

bill smith · 8th April 2009, 02:32 PM

It looks like Steven Jones made a more powerful impact at BYU than we were led tobelieve.

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.

T.A.M. · 8th April 2009, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

More bad news for the JREFers. Another famous authority figure has endorsed the findings of the International Team of Experts:

Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust

— Editor

A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.

The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.

Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.

READ THE REST, AND FOREVER REST YOUR PEACE!

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51

Who is the famous authority figure? certainly you don't mean Richard "Cardboard Box WTC" Gage?

TAM

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 02:39 PM

The truthers have set the bar very high for their paper, maybe a little too high?

"it's a ground-breaking scientific paper"
"It's unrebutted!"
"The days of the debunkers are numbered"
"This is a very important paper!"

Be careful truthers to not over do it. The way you're bragging and making noise about it, Jones and company have to suceed, they can't fail. Something has to happen now.

If they indeed succeeded in publishing a paper in a true peer-review journal, and if they do have something in their paper that is evidence for their cause, then shouldn't we expect that very soon this will make waves in the scientific community, and attract the media's attention? Won't this make as much of an impact as Einstein's papers on special and general relativity?

Let's just wait and see.

T.A.M. · 8th April 2009, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

I could really care less what they are up to. I want to see the paper scientifically debunked, or not debunked. If it stands unrebutted scientifically, its extremely important work.

Then I assume you will not be one of the many truthers here bragging endlessly about how the "peer reviewed quality" in an "established journal" gives this paper true merit, right?

Good to know.

TAM

T.A.M. · 8th April 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

I suspect it will remain unrebutted.

lol, don't mistake unrecognized, and unnoticed, for unrebutted.

TAM

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by GregoryUrich

The qualifications in this context are quite low due to all the inconsistancies that can be caught by laymen. Mackey is a published scientist (in real journals) and he has pointed out a number of problems.

I am only simple engineer but I can calculate the effects of the energy output which would require 100 times the thickness of the observed chips to do any damage. This alone is enough to rule out any sinister implications.

If you mean that someone needs to publish to challenge the paper you are simply appealing to authority, which, as we all know does not convince a critical thinker.

I have been visiting the JREF forum for three years. The people here do not respond to arguments about evidence. They only respond to arguments based on appeals to authority. That is why I try to confine myself to what is most persuassive here.

Mackey is not a qualified scientist regarding these matters. He has published nothing on the WTC dust. Everything he has posted here was already considered by the science team and the referees. Mackey has not even studied the dust so he simply does not know what he is talking about! Also, Mackey is a rabid debunker. He has reached a conclusion in advance, and then just spins whatever comes his way. I am not into spin, whether it be by Sean Hannity or Mackey.

You are one of the few JREFers here that I pay any attention to, along with Gravy. You are on record saying that the insulation would have protected the WTC for two hours, so the Towers could not have fallen in an hour or an hour and a half.

I ask you to speak up, now that hard evidence of exploisves has been found.

If you have any real questions, I will run them by my friends Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. If you are going to blend into the JREF herd and throw out your brain then so be it, but I have higher expectations of you.

Sincerely,

Galileo

T.A.M. · 8th April 2009, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

If you have any real questions, I will run them by my friends Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. If you are going to blend into the JREF herd and throw out your brain then so be it, but I have higher expectations of you.

Sincerely,

Galileo

What is it they say about birds of a feather.

lol

TAM

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

They only respond to arguments based on appeals to authority.

Hey, Mr. clone of Galileo Galilei, your persona here isn't an appeal to authority?

MikeW · 8th April 2009, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Be careful truthers to not over do it. The way you're bragging and making noise about it, Jones and company have to suceed, they can't fail. Something has to happen now.

No, it doesn't. They have the perfect self-reinforcing world view: any apparent success shows they're right, any apparent failure (such as nothing happen as a result of this article) will just be blamed on a conspiracy to cover it up, which they'll say also shows they're right.

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

It looks like Steven Jones made a more powerful impact at BYU than we were led tobelieve.

The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.

Haven't you been paying attention? All these guys are already truthers. They already have a vested interest for this to be proof of government complicity, not what I would call impartial objective researchers.

boloboffin · 8th April 2009, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

So what?

That's my point -- so what?

twinstead · 8th April 2009, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I am not into spin, whether it be by Sean Hannity or Mackey.

I can't believe you have the balls to actually say this. You are the greatest spinner of them all.

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by MikeW

No, it doesn't. They have the perfect self-reinforcing world view: any apparent success shows they're right, any apparent failure (such as nothing happen as a result of this article) will just be blamed on a conspiracy to cover it up, which they'll say also shows they're right.

Exactly, they just want to get their foot a little bit in the door, have their paper be published in some ambiguous scientific journal to appear to be legitimate. That's all they want, really. After that they always can come back to this paper and say: see, it's been published in a peer reviewed journal.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Exactly, they just want to get their foot a little bit in the door, have their paper be published in some ambiguous scientific journal to appear to be legitimate. That's all they want, really. After that they always can come back to this paper and say: see, it's been published in a peer reviewed journal.

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science.

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

If anything, you've only got his genes, not his genius.

What the hell am I doing talking to this guy, he's nuts!

nicepants · 8th April 2009, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science.

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

Then why do you endorse Jones' paper? He doesn't even specify the source of the paint sample used as a control. Do you not believe that is important?

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Haven't you been paying attention? All these guys are already truthers. They already have a vested interest for this to be proof of government complicity, not what I would call impartial objective researchers.

You are not paying attention. The only people who think the WTC fell down from fire are already archie debunkers and defenders of mass murder who hate our freedoms. They have a vested interest in claiming fire took down the WTC and covering up mass murder by the US government.

roundhead · 8th April 2009, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Then I assume you will not be one of the many truthers here bragging endlessly about how the "peer reviewed quality" in an "established journal" gives this paper true merit, right?

Good to know.

TAM

No..

I figure that if the work is shoddy, it will be scientifically debunked in another peer reviewed paper.If it is , so be it.

Hey, if i watched Magglio Ordonez play all 162 games this year and hit 320, and the NY times says he hit 280, and the Bugtussle tribune says he hit 320, i go with Bugtussle every day of the week.

In other words, its a scientific paper, your relenteless efforts to diminish the medium this paper was put out on means nothing, if its not rebutted somewhere else, scientifically.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

If anything, you've only got his genes, not his genius.

What the hell am I doing talking to this guy, he's nuts!

You violate the JREF rules by making personal attacks against members here.

lapman · 8th April 2009, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science.

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

We're still waiting for the peer-reviewed paper that shows that thermite was found. Not some made-up "nanothermite" that is based on an exremely biased testing that only resulted in speculation.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by nicepants

Then why do you endorse Jones' paper? He doesn't even specify the source of the paint sample used as a control. Do you not believe that is important?

Do you think that the paint sample had military grade thermite in it? If so, write up a peer reviewed science paper and get it published.

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

I figure that if the work is shoddy, it will be scientifically debunked in another peer reviewed paper.If it is , so be it.

And if it is accurate and if its data is ideed important, then it has to make an impression on the scientific community and the world.

You understand that?

bill smith · 8th April 2009, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Haven't you been paying attention? All these guys are already truthers. They already have a vested interest for this to be proof of government complicity, not what I would call impartial objective researchers.

Why on Earth would anybody want it to be the government ? I think most people would give almost anything for it to really have been Bin Laden and the 19 Muslims. How much easier it would be only to have to worry about an outside enemy.

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

You violate the JREF rules by making personal attacks against members here.

I'm sorry, I've never spoken to clones before. I don't know about clone etiquette.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by lapman

We're still waiting for the peer-reviewed paper that shows that thermite was found. Not some made-up "nanothermite" that is based on an exremely biased testing that only resulted in speculation.

The paper has already been published, they found thermite. Sorry, you lose. There were explosives in the WTC.

leftysergeant · 8th April 2009, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found.

There is no way that the substrances typical of expended thermite would NOT be found in a collapsed office building, even one known to have fallen due to an earthquake, so what would you test for by chemical analysis?

Only a physical examination of the thermite-cut metal would reveal anything, and those would have been obvious to any of the fire fighters on the pile.

Get a clue.

Quote:

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

Right now you are endorsing the prejudices of the ignorant.

nicepants · 8th April 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Do you think that the paint sample had military grade thermite in it? If so, write up a peer reviewed science paper and get it published.

I never said that...I said that Jones didn't identify the source of the control. Do you believe that the source/composition of his control sample is unimportant or irrelevant?

RedIbis · 8th April 2009, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Why on Earth would anybody want it to be the government ? I think most people would give almost anything for it to really have been Bin Laden and the 19 Muslims. How much easier it would be only to have to worry about an outside enemy.

Excellent point and I've tried to make it here many times before.

gc051360 · 8th April 2009, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science.

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

You think they should have looked for thermite specifically? And if they didn't...it's a case of pseudo science?

You want them to write papers on everything that was not present?

Pardalis · 8th April 2009, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by bill smith

Why on Earth would anybody want it to be the government ?

The mind of conspiracy theorists and denialists is very complex.

They know they can't change the world, so they rely instead on making people doubt, by fear mongering. They know that's as much they can do, and it's really all they want.

roundhead · 8th April 2009, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

And if it is accurate and if its data is ideed important, then it has to make an impression on the scientific community and the world.

You understand that?

I think its very hard to argue that if the paper is correct, its mighty important. I think that is very safe to say and 100% true.

As the above is in fact the case, why do you suspect not one network has touched it??

I mean, if this paper turns out to be true, why would that not be huge news at any TV station.

T.A.M. · 8th April 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science.

I am Galileo and endorse real science.

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for pixie dust, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse pseudo-science.

I am the Dragon in the Garage and endorse real science.

TAM

gc051360 · 8th April 2009, 03:09 PM

Why would anybody want it to be the government?

Because in that case, at least there is order.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

The mind of conspiracy theorists and denialists is very complex.

They know they can't change the world, so they rely instead on making people doubt, by fear mongering.

Sure it is. The JREFers believe in the gigantic multi-continent cave conspiracy, with boxcutters.

Galileo · 8th April 2009, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for pixie dust, and none was found.

You don;t have one because you only endorse pseudo-science.

I am the Dragon in the Garage and endorse real science.

TAM

For a guy who claims to have an education, that is a pretty pathetic arguments. So far, all scientific tests for thermite in WTC dust have found it.

T.A.M. · 8th April 2009, 03:12 PM

Originally Posted by roundhead

No..

I figure that if the work is shoddy, it will be scientifically debunked in another peer reviewed paper.If it is , so be it.

Hey, if i watched Magglio Ordonez play all 162 games this year and hit 320, and the NY times says he hit 280, and the Bugtussle tribune says he hit 320, i go with Bugtussle every day of the week.

In other words, its a scientific paper, your relenteless efforts to diminish the medium this paper was put out on means nothing, if its not rebutted somewhere else, scientifically.

No, we are trying to show you that the only "journal" stupid, desperate, and sleazy enough to print the BS that is Jones paper, is the Bentham Journal in question.

If Jones paper had REAL merit, it would have been picked up by DOZENS of NON "PAY TO PLAY" Journals with editorial boards full of true peers, that were NOT obtained through viral marketing to UNQUALIFIED people.

TAM

8th April 2009, 02:20 PM	#1001
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by Sunstealer Well I think that the elemental Al issue is still up for debate - They only say that they picked a region of the sample for the EDS and don't give and exact area nor the corresponding SEM photo. It might sound a bit picky, but i'd like conformation. Isn't paramagnetism only present in a magnetic field? The material doesn't exhibit magnetic properties outside of the field. I'm just trying to see if it might explain why the elemental aluminium concentrated during the 55 hours in MEK with agitation. Correct as far as I know. That's the difference between paramagnetic and magnetic materials (Dare I cite Wikipedia?). I think Dr. Greening only brought up magnetism related to why the chips were attracted to a magnet and wasn't thinking of the paramagnetic properties of Al.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

8th April 2009, 02:23 PM	#1002
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,715	Originally Posted by Galileo dude, this is a science forum. There is no such word as "twoofer" in science. The paper is being supported by other experts, contrary to your false assertions. Show me a qualified scientist who have published an article that tears apart the paper. If you can't that makes you a liar as well. False. No qualified scientist would want to waste the $600 fee to get the rebuttal published or even have their name associated with a junk journal. Dr. Greening is a qualified scientist and Dr. Jones refuses to answer his questions or provide him with the data he asks for. Over a year ago, Dr. Greening asked for Jones' full EDS data. IIRC, it was never sent. Why is Jones keeping is data secret? Why is this ok with you? Why doesn't he disclose what paint he used for comparison?
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,715	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

8th April 2009, 02:30 PM	#1003
GregoryUrich Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: Main Street USA Posts: 1,316	Originally Posted by Galileo dude, this is a science forum. There is no such word as "twoofer" in science. The paper is being supported by other experts, contrary to your false assertions. Show me a qualified scientist who have published an article that tears apart the paper. If you can't that makes you a liar as well. The qualifications in this context are quite low due to all the inconsistancies that can be caught by laymen. Mackey is a published scientist (in real journals) and he has pointed out a number of problems. I am only simple engineer but I can calculate the effects of the energy output which would require 100 times the thickness of the observed chips to do any damage. This alone is enough to rule out any sinister implications. If you mean that someone needs to publish to challenge the paper you are simply appealing to authority, which, as we all know does not convince a critical thinker.
	__________________ "My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil

8th April 2009, 02:32 PM	#1005
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	It looks like Steven Jones made a more powerful impact at BYU than we were led tobelieve. The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

8th April 2009, 02:39 PM	#1007
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	The truthers have set the bar very high for their paper, maybe a little too high? "it's a ground-breaking scientific paper" "It's unrebutted!" "The days of the debunkers are numbered" "This is a very important paper!" Be careful truthers to not over do it. The way you're bragging and making noise about it, Jones and company have to suceed, they can't fail. Something has to happen now. If they indeed succeeded in publishing a paper in a true peer-review journal, and if they do have something in their paper that is evidence for their cause, then shouldn't we expect that very soon this will make waves in the scientific community, and attract the media's attention? Won't this make as much of an impact as Einstein's papers on special and general relativity? Let's just wait and see.
	Last edited by Pardalis; 8th April 2009 at 02:40 PM.

8th April 2009, 02:31 PM	#1004
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by boloboffin AE911Truth is one of the organizations behind the paper, Galileo. They're listed on the front page. Famous Authority Figure Endorses Own Paper So what?

8th April 2009, 02:37 PM	#1006
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by Galileo More bad news for the JREFers. Another famous authority figure has endorsed the findings of the International Team of Experts: Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust — Editor A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive. The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations. Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen. READ THE REST, AND FOREVER REST YOUR PEACE! http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51 Who is the famous authority figure? certainly you don't mean Richard "Cardboard Box WTC" Gage? TAM

8th April 2009, 02:40 PM	#1008
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by roundhead I could really care less what they are up to. I want to see the paper scientifically debunked, or not debunked. If it stands unrebutted scientifically, its extremely important work. Then I assume you will not be one of the many truthers here bragging endlessly about how the "peer reviewed quality" in an "established journal" gives this paper true merit, right? Good to know. TAM

8th April 2009, 02:41 PM	#1009
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by roundhead I suspect it will remain unrebutted. lol, don't mistake unrecognized, and unnoticed, for unrebutted. TAM

8th April 2009, 02:41 PM	#1010
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by GregoryUrich The qualifications in this context are quite low due to all the inconsistancies that can be caught by laymen. Mackey is a published scientist (in real journals) and he has pointed out a number of problems. I am only simple engineer but I can calculate the effects of the energy output which would require 100 times the thickness of the observed chips to do any damage. This alone is enough to rule out any sinister implications. If you mean that someone needs to publish to challenge the paper you are simply appealing to authority, which, as we all know does not convince a critical thinker. I have been visiting the JREF forum for three years. The people here do not respond to arguments about evidence. They only respond to arguments based on appeals to authority. That is why I try to confine myself to what is most persuassive here. Mackey is not a qualified scientist regarding these matters. He has published nothing on the WTC dust. Everything he has posted here was already considered by the science team and the referees. Mackey has not even studied the dust so he simply does not know what he is talking about! Also, Mackey is a rabid debunker. He has reached a conclusion in advance, and then just spins whatever comes his way. I am not into spin, whether it be by Sean Hannity or Mackey. You are one of the few JREFers here that I pay any attention to, along with Gravy. You are on record saying that the insulation would have protected the WTC for two hours, so the Towers could not have fallen in an hour or an hour and a half. I ask you to speak up, now that hard evidence of exploisves has been found. If you have any real questions, I will run them by my friends Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. If you are going to blend into the JREF herd and throw out your brain then so be it, but I have higher expectations of you. Sincerely, Galileo
	Last edited by Galileo; 8th April 2009 at 02:43 PM.

8th April 2009, 02:45 PM	#1011
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by Galileo If you have any real questions, I will run them by my friends Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan. If you are going to blend into the JREF herd and throw out your brain then so be it, but I have higher expectations of you. Sincerely, Galileo What is it they say about birds of a feather. lol TAM

8th April 2009, 02:46 PM	#1012
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Galileo They only respond to arguments based on appeals to authority. Hey, Mr. clone of Galileo Galilei, your persona here isn't an appeal to authority?

8th April 2009, 02:47 PM	#1013
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	Originally Posted by Pardalis Be careful truthers to not over do it. The way you're bragging and making noise about it, Jones and company have to suceed, they can't fail. Something has to happen now. No, it doesn't. They have the perfect self-reinforcing world view: any apparent success shows they're right, any apparent failure (such as nothing happen as a result of this article) will just be blamed on a conspiracy to cover it up, which they'll say also shows they're right.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

8th April 2009, 02:48 PM	#1014
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by bill smith It looks like Steven Jones made a more powerful impact at BYU than we were led tobelieve. The nine co-authors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT. Haven't you been paying attention? All these guys are already truthers. They already have a vested interest for this to be proof of government complicity, not what I would call impartial objective researchers.

8th April 2009, 02:48 PM	#1015
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 5,001	Originally Posted by Galileo So what? That's my point -- so what?

8th April 2009, 02:50 PM	#1016
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,576	Originally Posted by Galileo I am not into spin, whether it be by Sean Hannity or Mackey. I can't believe you have the balls to actually say this. You are the greatest spinner of them all.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

8th April 2009, 02:52 PM	#1017
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by MikeW No, it doesn't. They have the perfect self-reinforcing world view: any apparent success shows they're right, any apparent failure (such as nothing happen as a result of this article) will just be blamed on a conspiracy to cover it up, which they'll say also shows they're right. Exactly, they just want to get their foot a little bit in the door, have their paper be published in some ambiguous scientific journal to appear to be legitimate. That's all they want, really. After that they always can come back to this paper and say: see, it's been published in a peer reviewed journal.

8th April 2009, 02:55 PM	#1018
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Pardalis Exactly, they just want to get their foot a little bit in the door, have their paper be published in some ambiguous scientific journal to appear to be legitimate. That's all they want, really. After that they always can come back to this paper and say: see, it's been published in a peer reviewed journal. show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found. You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science. I am Galileo and endorse real science.

8th April 2009, 02:56 PM	#1019
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Galileo I am Galileo and endorse real science. If anything, you've only got his genes, not his genius. What the hell am I doing talking to this guy, he's nuts!
	Last edited by Pardalis; 8th April 2009 at 02:58 PM.

8th April 2009, 02:58 PM	#1020
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,720	Originally Posted by Galileo show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found. You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science. I am Galileo and endorse real science. Then why do you endorse Jones' paper? He doesn't even specify the source of the paint sample used as a control. Do you not believe that is important?
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein

8th April 2009, 02:58 PM	#1021
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Pardalis Haven't you been paying attention? All these guys are already truthers. They already have a vested interest for this to be proof of government complicity, not what I would call impartial objective researchers. You are not paying attention. The only people who think the WTC fell down from fire are already archie debunkers and defenders of mass murder who hate our freedoms. They have a vested interest in claiming fire took down the WTC and covering up mass murder by the US government.

8th April 2009, 02:59 PM	#1022
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824	Originally Posted by T.A.M. Then I assume you will not be one of the many truthers here bragging endlessly about how the "peer reviewed quality" in an "established journal" gives this paper true merit, right? Good to know. TAM No.. I figure that if the work is shoddy, it will be scientifically debunked in another peer reviewed paper.If it is , so be it. Hey, if i watched Magglio Ordonez play all 162 games this year and hit 320, and the NY times says he hit 280, and the Bugtussle tribune says he hit 320, i go with Bugtussle every day of the week. In other words, its a scientific paper, your relenteless efforts to diminish the medium this paper was put out on means nothing, if its not rebutted somewhere else, scientifically.
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824

8th April 2009, 03:00 PM	#1023
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Pardalis If anything, you've only got his genes, not his genius. What the hell am I doing talking to this guy, he's nuts! You violate the JREF rules by making personal attacks against members here.

8th April 2009, 03:00 PM	#1024
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,715	Originally Posted by Galileo show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found. You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science. I am Galileo and endorse real science. We're still waiting for the peer-reviewed paper that shows that thermite was found. Not some made-up "nanothermite" that is based on an exremely biased testing that only resulted in speculation.
lapman Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,715	__________________ They take their paranoia, mix in a healthy dose of mistrust in anything "gubmint", and then bake it in that big ole EZ Bake oven of ignorance, and come to the delusional conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. - Seymour Butz

8th April 2009, 03:01 PM	#1025
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by nicepants Then why do you endorse Jones' paper? He doesn't even specify the source of the paint sample used as a control. Do you not believe that is important? Do you think that the paint sample had military grade thermite in it? If so, write up a peer reviewed science paper and get it published.

8th April 2009, 03:01 PM	#1026
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by roundhead I figure that if the work is shoddy, it will be scientifically debunked in another peer reviewed paper.If it is , so be it. And if it is accurate and if its data is ideed important, then it has to make an impression on the scientific community and the world. You understand that?

8th April 2009, 03:01 PM	#1027
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	Originally Posted by Pardalis Haven't you been paying attention? All these guys are already truthers. They already have a vested interest for this to be proof of government complicity, not what I would call impartial objective researchers. Why on Earth would anybody want it to be the government ? I think most people would give almost anything for it to really have been Bin Laden and the 19 Muslims. How much easier it would be only to have to worry about an outside enemy.
bill smith Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 8,408	__________________ Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough * To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

8th April 2009, 03:02 PM	#1028
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Galileo You violate the JREF rules by making personal attacks against members here. I'm sorry, I've never spoken to clones before. I don't know about clone etiquette.

8th April 2009, 03:03 PM	#1029
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Middleton, WI Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by lapman We're still waiting for the peer-reviewed paper that shows that thermite was found. Not some made-up "nanothermite" that is based on an exremely biased testing that only resulted in speculation. The paper has already been published, they found thermite. Sorry, you lose. There were explosives in the WTC.

8th April 2009, 03:03 PM	#1030
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Galileo show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found. There is no way that the substrances typical of expended thermite would NOT be found in a collapsed office building, even one known to have fallen due to an earthquake, so what would you test for by chemical analysis? Only a physical examination of the thermite-cut metal would reveal anything, and those would have been obvious to any of the fire fighters on the pile. Get a clue. Quote: I am Galileo and endorse real science. Right now you are endorsing the prejudices of the ignorant.

8th April 2009, 03:04 PM	#1031
nicepants Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,720	Originally Posted by Galileo Do you think that the paint sample had military grade thermite in it? If so, write up a peer reviewed science paper and get it published. I never said that...I said that Jones didn't identify the source of the control. Do you believe that the source/composition of his control sample is unimportant or irrelevant?
	__________________ Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen -Einstein

8th April 2009, 03:05 PM	#1032
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	Originally Posted by bill smith Why on Earth would anybody want it to be the government ? I think most people would give almost anything for it to really have been Bin Laden and the 19 Muslims. How much easier it would be only to have to worry about an outside enemy. Excellent point and I've tried to make it here many times before.
RedIbis Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,829	__________________ (RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)

8th April 2009, 03:06 PM	#1033
gc051360 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 273	Originally Posted by Galileo show me a peer reviewed science paper, where WTC was tested for thermite, and none was found. You don;t have one because you only endorse psuedo-science. I am Galileo and endorse real science. You think they should have looked for thermite specifically? And if they didn't...it's a case of pseudo science? You want them to write papers on everything that was not present?
gc051360 Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 273

8th April 2009, 03:07 PM	#1034
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by bill smith Why on Earth would anybody want it to be the government ? The mind of conspiracy theorists and denialists is very complex. They know they can't change the world, so they rely instead on making people doubt, by fear mongering. They know that's as much they can do, and it's really all they want.
	Last edited by Pardalis; 8th April 2009 at 03:09 PM.

8th April 2009, 03:08 PM	#1035
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824	Originally Posted by Pardalis And if it is accurate and if its data is ideed important, then it has to make an impression on the scientific community and the world. You understand that? I think its very hard to argue that if the paper is correct, its mighty important. I think that is very safe to say and 100% true. As the above is in fact the case, why do you suspect not one network has touched it?? I mean, if this paper turns out to be true, why would that not be huge news at any TV station.
roundhead Banned Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 824