Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked

cmatrix · 10th September 2009, 01:59 PM

Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:

The scientists in the paper failed to realize that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was much steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum from the facade. During the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips.

The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition [1]. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less [2]. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components [1]. Random mixing of building material can't create such uniform highly engineered materials.

The paper is bunk because it was published in a non-peer-reviewed vanity publication.

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. This paper needs to be read by everyone and that is exactly why it should have been published in an open journal.

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. All the evidence suggests that it is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. It looks like a peer-reviewed journal and acts like a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham, the publisher, says that it is peer-reviewed. The journal editors and the journal contributors say it is peer-reviewed. So until someone provides evidence to the contrary The Open Chemical Physics Journal is, as far as we know, a peer-reviewed journal.

Recently Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal [3], The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. "Debunkers" of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So clearly there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. What the "debunkers" have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument, in particular they commit the hasty generalization logical fallacy [4]. In other words, there is absolutely no substance to this argument. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals [5]. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with the peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on a penny.

The paper is bunk because its editor in chief resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience.

The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer.

Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about.

Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?

The scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams.

According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.

Every "debunker" argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.

References

[links removed due to JREF policy]

[1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Available from:

[2] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. Available from:

[3] The Scientist blog. Available from:

[4] Fallacy: Hasty Generalization (Nizkor Project). Available from:

[5] Bentham site

[6] Levine, I. N. (1978). Physical Chemistry McGraw-Hill publishing ISBN 0-07-037418-X

[7]

[8]

[9] NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. Available from:

tuc0 · 10th September 2009, 02:04 PM

Justin39640 · 10th September 2009, 02:06 PM

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why...90814-310.html

here ya go

is that your piece or are you copying and pasting it for our viewing pleasure?

ETA:

Originally Posted by tuc0

indeed lol

alienentity · 10th September 2009, 02:15 PM

Hmm, can't seem to comment on the OpEd site. Won't bother with this thread, since we've been thru this stuff before.

Oh well. Another truther insulated from criticism...what's new?

BigAl · 10th September 2009, 02:22 PM

You are on ignore.

Pardalis · 10th September 2009, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

You are on ignore.

Why alienentity is a charming poster!

16.5 · 10th September 2009, 02:29 PM

Please read this thread, and until then, kindly STFU.

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

kthxbye

Newtons Bit · 10th September 2009, 02:35 PM

I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that.

This should lead you to believe, what?

Justin39640 · 10th September 2009, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that.

This should lead you to believe, what?

paint isn't classified as HAZMAT for nothing lol

oldhat · 10th September 2009, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit

I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that.

This should lead you to believe, what?

Double the energy content = SUPER nanothermite!

cmatrix · 10th September 2009, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by 16.5

Please read this thread, and until then, kindly STFU.

kthxbye

Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.

Sword_Of_Truth · 10th September 2009, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked.

We believe that because it has been debunked... by none other than Dr. Neils Harrit!

Quote:

Niels Harrit: I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.

RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!

I have some questions for you, Cmatrix:

How do you explain no one hearing the conventional explosives described by Dr. Harrit?

How do you explain the complete lack of seismic signatures that would have been created by the conventional explosives Dr. Harrit desribes?

How do you explain the complete lack of copper residues that would have been left by the conventional explosives that Dr. Harrit posits?

dudalb · 10th September 2009, 03:00 PM

The name "cmatrix" should have told us what to expect.
Take the Red Pill, dude,take the Red Pill.............

WildCat · 10th September 2009, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.

So do you agree with Harrit that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were used in the towers?

T.A.M. · 10th September 2009, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.

paint chips.

Next

TAM

fourtoe · 10th September 2009, 03:16 PM

cmatrix,

Welcome to the forums!

Do you believe that nano-thermite was used? Or super-nano-thermite?

Arus808 · 10th September 2009, 03:19 PM

why does anyone need to debunk red paint chips...

its easy:

Neil, your samples are of normal RED paint chips; found abundantly within WTC towers because the BEAMS were painted in red paint.

simple. totally debunks his paper.
What more debunking is needed?

16.5 · 10th September 2009, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.

Oh really? Then why did you cut and paste some garbage from another site without disclosing it instead of posting in the actual thread?.

You'll forgive me for my thinking that you are a big *********** liar.

triforcharity · 10th September 2009, 06:08 PM

Thousand of tons of TNT going off would have killed everyone in Lower Manhattan. Pretty much, anything south of Canal St. would have been destroyed.

Obviously, that isn't the case.

Sword_Of_Truth · 10th September 2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Thousand of tons of TNT going off would have killed everyone in Lower Manhattan. Pretty much, anything south of Canal St. would have been destroyed.

Obviously, that isn't the case.

Yes, this is true.

However, I would like to hear from Cmatrix his thoughts on the gaping holes in Dr. Harrits theory that conventional explosives are responsible for bringing down the twin towers and WTC7.

triforcharity · 10th September 2009, 06:47 PM

That 'ought to be good for at LEAST one stundie!!

TheBigKahuna · 11th September 2009, 12:02 AM

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

Fjolle · 11th September 2009, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

According to Harrit that was how the super-nano-thermite that they compared it to was done, but I haven't seen any proof of that.

It might explain why it has twice the energy that thermite should have though

McHrozni · 11th September 2009, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna

I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

But ... but ... but ... the researchers doing NANO-THERMITE did it in an oxidizing atmosphere as well!! Results must be comparable!! We must ignore the possibility there was another energetic component entirely, since, uh, the DSC graphs are similar ... yes they do show an exothermic reaction at a different temperature, but it also rises and ... uh ... it's been peer reviewed, so game over!!! Ha!

[/twoof]

Paraphrased actual answers that I got from various people. It's rather sad, really.

McHrozni

McHrozni · 11th September 2009, 01:01 AM

Originally Posted by Fjolle

It might explain why it has twice the energy that thermite should have though

It's a lot worse: it had twice the energy that thermite could have

McHrozni

TruthersLie · 11th September 2009, 02:16 AM

blah blah blah truther bleating.

Thank you for joining, this time try to do some REAL research (have to give you some props for an attempt with citations) but still crap.

over 20 methodological errors in that "paper" (snicker)
Pay to publish vanity journal (which they are. I have 3 peer reviewed articles on my cv and didn't have to pay for ANY of them)

But hey they claim they are peer reviewed... I have a webpage which says I have a 20" cock... doesn't make it true now does it?

The full debunking of the paper by Sunstealer and others is JUST (actually more) scientifically valid as this bentham "paper" (snicker) due to a REAL peer review.

Try again.

Horatius · 11th September 2009, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers.

...except for those devilishly clever folks who know how to use a library.

Quote:

Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority.

...that "minority" being those evil conspirators who know how to use a library.

Quote:

This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts.

...unless they're one of those bastards who know how to use a library.

Dave Rogers · 11th September 2009, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:

Having addressed your carefully cherry-picked specious "proofs", which have been put forward as commentary rather than disproof by debunkers, I look forward with interest to your addressing of the gaping flaws in methodology and contradictory evidence contained in the paper itself, which are enough on their own to disprove it.

Still, I suppose it was conspiracy theorists who popularised the term "hit piece".

Dave

beachnut · 11th September 2009, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.

Jones makes up thermite scenario 4 years after 911, and now 4 years after Jones nut case statement, people think the papers done by Jones are serious efforts. A fringe few who lack the skill of basic research.

The fact is zero thermite damage was found at the WTC, zero piles of thermite product were found. The cool part is I have Jones' first paper and can see he is a liar. You failed and now push the lie based on your own failed delusions.

The paper about a fictional event, thermite being used to destroy the WTC, is pure nut case conspiracy theories to fool the weak minded who love to entertain paranoid conspiracy theories with vapor support.

I can't wait for Jones' paper on Bigfoot, or some other fantasy he has. Wait, he did publish Jesus/Christ walking in North America. Thermite and Christ. Which is his best work. I like the Christ story (pure faith) much better than his thermite work (pure lies); something to do with faith.

What temperature does thermite ignite at? Do you understand chemistry or are you taking the word of a known liar on 911 issues?

Quote:

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication.

OOPS, they paid to have it published and it is clearly politically biased tripe based on a fantasy made up by Jones. Ask a real scientist next time you take the time to research properly a subject well beyond your capabilities.

You posted what you thought was great work and now you will be reduced to talk since you can't explain why the chips tested offered different energy levels than thermite would, some less, some more. Got chemistry?

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why...90814-310.html

No you posted lies from other people as your work. Is that your failed doltish piece of poppycock?
The real truth...

Originally Posted by dudalb

The name "cmatrix" should have told us what to expect.
Take the Red Pill, dude,take the Red Pill.............

Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite! Who needs the thermite scam made up by Jones? Jet fuel has more energy, Jones makes up lies.

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

So do you agree with Harrit that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were used in the towers?

Harrit is a chemistry professor, not a demolitions expert. This is no debunking of his findings. Ot is "100 tons" the logic negation of "we found nanothermite". I must have a problem with the english language. I would have thought "we found no nanothermite" would be debunking. You possibly have a problem with logic. But I am here to help you.

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite! Who needs the thermite scam made up by Jones? Jet fuel has more energy, Jones makes up lies.

Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

You are on ignore.

It is a good idea. Other people might notice that you run out of arguments.

beachnut · 11th September 2009, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by paulheinze

Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.

But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again.

Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking.

I love how you dismiss 315 tons of TNT heat energy in each of the jet fuel impacts. Gee how much thermite did Jones bring to the WTC in his insane ideas? Please tell us exactly how much termite it takes!? You can't? What is the matter, you don't have the facts? Can't you do physics or chemistry?

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by beachnut

But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again.

Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking.

The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. Try it out, light a fire with paper on the motor block of your car. Maybe the paper wll melt through it and you prove me wrong. Or do it like the history channel, put a steel beam on one point and a pile of paper, wood or anything 10 meters away and let the vast amount of heat energy do the rest.

Explosives have smaller energy densities because they contain the oxidizer, whereas paper needs air. This is also the reason why they react faster and can be more destructive.

BigAl · 11th September 2009, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by paulheinze

The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite.

That's a plus as far as heating beams goes.

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by McHrozni

It's a lot worse: it had twice the energy that thermite could have

McHrozni

nanoenergetic materials can contain organic compounds in order to enhance energy density and in order to produce gas on reaction. It makes them explosive.

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

That's a plus as far as heating beams goes.

If you consider the energy lost to the gaseous products which have not the tendency to stick to a steel beam it is rather a disadvantage. You will need some thermal isolation like in a foundry.

BigAl · 11th September 2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by paulheinze

nanoenergetic materials can contain organic compounds in order to enhance energy density and in order to produce gas on reaction. It makes them explosive.

To the extent this is true, it means they go BOOM and nobody heard a BOOM consistant with man-nade demolition at WTC on 9/11.

In any case, nobody knows how to make therm-anything cut immense beams and make horizontal cuts.

paulheinze · 11th September 2009, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

To the extent this is true, it means they go BOOM and nobody heard a BOOM consistant with man-nade demolition at WTC on 9/11.

I admit that. But my problem is the loudness of the collapses of the WTC. They might have been loud enough to conceal BOOMs after initiation. But you are right before collapse initiation.

alienentity · 11th September 2009, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by paulheinze

I admit that. But my problem is the loudness of the collapses of the WTC. They might have been loud enough to conceal BOOMs after initiation. But you are right before collapse initiation.

Since, after collapse initiation, there was nothing needed to continue the collapse, there was no need to trigger hidden explosives. (and before you state that they wouldn't have continued collapsing, consult a few peer-reviewed papers by structural engineers, and maybe even one of these nifty youtube videos. Please watch the whole video, which also includes the reference to a patent explaining that the structure is not weakened below the collapse point. Once collapse is initiated, no explosives are needed. See for yourself and stop being so damn silly)

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Your hypothesis is not logical.

Also, in the case of WTC7, there is no question that there were no demolition explosives triggering the collapse, nor were any heard during the collapse. The complete absence of such evidence falsifies explosive CD theory in that case.
Another mechanism is the better explanation, which just happens to be the one reached by extensive engineering models. What an interesting coincidence!

Regarding nanothermite, wouldn't it have been cool if Jones, Harrit et al. had chosen (thought of) to combust the chips in the absence of oxygen?
Hmmm...they didn't do that, so their results are de facto inconclusive. Real thermite would have combusted without external O2.

And wouldn't it have been cool if they had bothered to find out what the 'organic' binder (also found in paint, btw) was?

And cool if they had bothered to discover what the gray layer was?

But they didn't do that. They were satisfied with a partial investigation, leaving several key questions unanswered. But then they went on to claim that they had 'proven' nanothermite.

Not quite. They haven't crossed that finish line yet.

10th September 2009, 01:59 PM	#1
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Why the Harrit Nano-thermite paper has not yet been debunked Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation: The scientists in the paper failed to realize that all the elements in the chips found were there in the building contents. There was much steel which rusts making iron oxide, aluminum from the facade. During the collapse the material was pulverized and then crushed to create the red/gray chips. The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition [1]. In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less [2]. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components [1]. Random mixing of building material can't create such uniform highly engineered materials. The paper is bunk because it was published in a non-peer-reviewed vanity publication. There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. It is an open journal which means anyone can read the papers within it for free. Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. This paper needs to be read by everyone and that is exactly why it should have been published in an open journal. There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a peer-reviewed journal. All the evidence suggests that it is in fact a peer-reviewed journal. It looks like a peer-reviewed journal and acts like a peer-reviewed journal. Bentham, the publisher, says that it is peer-reviewed. The journal editors and the journal contributors say it is peer-reviewed. So until someone provides evidence to the contrary The Open Chemical Physics Journal is, as far as we know, a peer-reviewed journal. Recently Philip Davis submitted a fake manuscript to another Bentham open access journal [3], The Open Information Science Journal. The paper was created by a computer program named SCIgen and contained nonsensical statements. This paper was allegedly accepted after undergoing peer review. Obviously the peer review process appears to have been conspicuously absent in this particular case. "Debunkers" of the thermite paper take this as proof that no Bentham open publications have peer-review. However, Davis also admits that a similar submission was rejected by another Bentham journal, The Open Software Engineering Journal. So clearly there is only evidence that one Bentham journal, at one time, had a problem with its peer review process. What the "debunkers" have put forth is merely a fallacious guilt by association argument, in particular they commit the hasty generalization logical fallacy [4]. In other words, there is absolutely no substance to this argument. Bentham publishes over 200 scientific journals [5]. To say all Bentham journals are not peer-reviewed because one journal at one time had a problem with the peer review process is like saying all coins are green because you found copper oxide on a penny. The paper is bunk because its editor in chief resigned saying she was not aware it was published in her journal and that it had nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics. She also claimed she cannot judge the paper because the subject matter is outside her field of experience. The paper does in fact deal with physical chemistry. Physical chemistry involves among other things, reaction kinetics on the rate of a reaction and the identity of ions on the electrical conductivity of materials [6]. In the paper they documented the reaction rates of the chips in relation to thermite and paint chips. They also subjected the red/gray chips to an electron beam and noted the poor conductivity of the red layer. Chemical physics is the branch of physics that studies chemical processes from the point of view of physics [7]. This would involve things like studying the dissolution of chemical bonds as they did when they soaked red/gray and paint chips in MEK. Chemical physics also involves the study of nanoparticles which is what the whole paper is about. Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign? The scientists that wrote that paper are incompetent. The chips they found were just paint chips from the heat-resistant primer coating the support beams. According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive. Every "debunker" argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science. References [links removed due to JREF policy] [1] Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. The Open Chemical Physics Journal. Available from: [2] Gash AE, Simpson RL, Tillotson TM, Satcher JH, Hrubesh LW. Making nanostructured pyrotechnics in a beaker. pre-print UCRL-JC-137593, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; April 10, 2000. Available from: [3] The Scientist blog. Available from: [4] Fallacy: Hasty Generalization (Nizkor Project). Available from: [5] Bentham site [6] Levine, I. N. (1978). Physical Chemistry McGraw-Hill publishing ISBN 0-07-037418-X [7] [8] [9] NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. Available from:
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416

10th September 2009, 02:04 PM	#2
tuc0 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 513	No.
tuc0 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 513

10th September 2009, 02:06 PM	#3
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why...90814-310.html here ya go is that your piece or are you copying and pasting it for our viewing pleasure? ETA: Originally Posted by tuc0 No. indeed lol
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus Last edited by Justin39640; 10th September 2009 at 02:07 PM.

10th September 2009, 02:15 PM	#4
alienentity Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Somewhere between Here and There Posts: 4,240	Hmm, can't seem to comment on the OpEd site. Won't bother with this thread, since we've been thru this stuff before. Oh well. Another truther insulated from criticism...what's new?
	__________________ Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

10th September 2009, 02:22 PM	#5
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	You are on ignore.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

10th September 2009, 02:24 PM	#6
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by BigAl You are on ignore. Why alienentity is a charming poster!

10th September 2009, 02:29 PM	#7
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,678	Please read this thread, and until then, kindly STFU. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017 kthxbye
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,678

10th September 2009, 02:35 PM	#8
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,886	I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that. This should lead you to believe, what? it can't be thermite
Newtons Bit Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 6,886	__________________ "Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein My website.

10th September 2009, 02:39 PM	#9
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that. This should lead you to believe, what? it can't be thermite paint isn't classified as HAZMAT for nothing lol
	__________________ "I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine "The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus

10th September 2009, 02:41 PM	#10
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 997	Originally Posted by Newtons Bit I dunno. Thermite has a maximum energy content of 4.0MJ/kg. One of the chips tested had an experimental energy content almost double that. This should lead you to believe, what? it can't be thermite Double the energy content = SUPER nanothermite!
oldhat Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 997	__________________ "I predict a complete rollover in Congress in 2010 to the Republicans. Bank on it. Laugh, but file it away in the back of your mind." -Beerina

10th September 2009, 02:54 PM	#11
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by 16.5 Please read this thread, and until then, kindly STFU. kthxbye Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416

10th September 2009, 02:56 PM	#12
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by cmatrix Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. We believe that because it has been debunked... by none other than Dr. Neils Harrit! Quote: Niels Harrit: I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance. RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean? Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons! I have some questions for you, Cmatrix: How do you explain no one hearing the conventional explosives described by Dr. Harrit? How do you explain the complete lack of seismic signatures that would have been created by the conventional explosives Dr. Harrit desribes? How do you explain the complete lack of copper residues that would have been left by the conventional explosives that Dr. Harrit posits?

10th September 2009, 03:00 PM	#13
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 22,797	The name "cmatrix" should have told us what to expect. Take the Red Pill, dude,take the Red Pill.............

10th September 2009, 03:02 PM	#14
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,990	Originally Posted by cmatrix Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles. So do you agree with Harrit that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were used in the towers?

10th September 2009, 03:04 PM	#15
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by cmatrix Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles. paint chips. Next TAM

10th September 2009, 03:16 PM	#16
fourtoe Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Northridge, Ca Posts: 1,015	cmatrix, Welcome to the forums! Do you believe that nano-thermite was used? Or super-nano-thermite?
	__________________ *My old username used to be knife fight colobus, but it was totally too long.* -Here's my YouTube Channel where I either debate crazies (Kirk Cameron, Westboro Baptist Church, Truthers etc.) or play Zelda -I sooo have a blog. -The thread for discussing/reviewing and posting any 911 related debates one can find!

10th September 2009, 03:19 PM	#17
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	why does anyone need to debunk red paint chips... its easy: Neil, your samples are of normal RED paint chips; found abundantly within WTC towers because the BEAMS were painted in red paint. simple. totally debunks his paper. What more debunking is needed?
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

10th September 2009, 03:39 PM	#18
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,678	Originally Posted by cmatrix Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles. Oh really? Then why did you cut and paste some garbage from another site without disclosing it instead of posting in the actual thread?. You'll forgive me for my thinking that you are a big *********** liar.
16.5 Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 4,678

10th September 2009, 06:08 PM	#19
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,155	Thousand of tons of TNT going off would have killed everyone in Lower Manhattan. Pretty much, anything south of Canal St. would have been destroyed. Obviously, that isn't the case.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

10th September 2009, 06:16 PM	#20
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by triforcharity Thousand of tons of TNT going off would have killed everyone in Lower Manhattan. Pretty much, anything south of Canal St. would have been destroyed. Obviously, that isn't the case. Yes, this is true. However, I would like to hear from Cmatrix his thoughts on the gaping holes in Dr. Harrits theory that conventional explosives are responsible for bringing down the twin towers and WTC7.

10th September 2009, 06:47 PM	#21
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,155	That 'ought to be good for at LEAST one stundie!!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

11th September 2009, 12:02 AM	#22
TheBigKahuna Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: NWO Complex at Hardin MT Posts: 164	I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.

11th September 2009, 12:09 AM	#23
Fjolle Student Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 34	Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology. According to Harrit that was how the super-nano-thermite that they compared it to was done, but I haven't seen any proof of that. It might explain why it has twice the energy that thermite should have though
Fjolle Student Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 34	Last edited by Fjolle; 11th September 2009 at 12:12 AM.

11th September 2009, 01:00 AM	#24
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by TheBigKahuna I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology. But ... but ... but ... the researchers doing NANO-THERMITE did it in an oxidizing atmosphere as well!! Results must be comparable!! We must ignore the possibility there was another energetic component entirely, since, uh, the DSC graphs are similar ... yes they do show an exothermic reaction at a different temperature, but it also rises and ... uh ... it's been peer reviewed, so game over!!! Ha! [/twoof] Paraphrased actual answers that I got from various people. It's rather sad, really. McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

11th September 2009, 01:01 AM	#25
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Fjolle It might explain why it has twice the energy that thermite should have though It's a lot worse: it had twice the energy that thermite could have McHrozni
McHrozni Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,563

11th September 2009, 02:16 AM	#26
TruthersLie This space for rent. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates Posts: 3,720	blah blah blah truther bleating. Thank you for joining, this time try to do some REAL research (have to give you some props for an attempt with citations) but still crap. over 20 methodological errors in that "paper" (snicker) Pay to publish vanity journal (which they are. I have 3 peer reviewed articles on my cv and didn't have to pay for ANY of them) But hey they claim they are peer reviewed... I have a webpage which says I have a 20" cock... doesn't make it true now does it? The full debunking of the paper by Sunstealer and others is JUST (actually more) scientifically valid as this bentham "paper" (snicker) due to a REAL peer review. Try again.

11th September 2009, 04:39 AM	#27
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada Posts: 21,889	Originally Posted by cmatrix Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers. ...except for those devilishly clever folks who know how to use a library. Quote: Open journals instead charge the authors a fee to submit a paper. Some open journals only charge the fee when the paper is accepted for publication. Open journals are a superior format because they allow scientific data to be freely accessible to everyone instead of being closed off to a small minority. ...that "minority" being those evil conspirators who know how to use a library. Quote: This journal was chosen because it is open. That means everyone on Earth can read the paper for free. Only subscribers can read articles from closed journals. Everyone else can only read abstracts. ...unless they're one of those bastards who know how to use a library.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

11th September 2009, 11:26 AM	#28
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Originally Posted by cmatrix I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation: Having addressed your carefully cherry-picked specious "proofs", which have been put forward as commentary rather than disproof by debunkers, I look forward with interest to your addressing of the gaping flaws in methodology and contradictory evidence contained in the paper itself, which are enough on their own to disprove it. Still, I suppose it was conspiracy theorists who popularised the term "hit piece". Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

11th September 2009, 11:46 AM	#29
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Originally Posted by cmatrix Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles. Jones makes up thermite scenario 4 years after 911, and now 4 years after Jones nut case statement, people think the papers done by Jones are serious efforts. A fringe few who lack the skill of basic research. The fact is zero thermite damage was found at the WTC, zero piles of thermite product were found. The cool part is I have Jones' first paper and can see he is a liar. You failed and now push the lie based on your own failed delusions. The paper about a fictional event, thermite being used to destroy the WTC, is pure nut case conspiracy theories to fool the weak minded who love to entertain paranoid conspiracy theories with vapor support. I can't wait for Jones' paper on Bigfoot, or some other fantasy he has. Wait, he did publish Jesus/Christ walking in North America. Thermite and Christ. Which is his best work. I like the Christ story (pure faith) much better than his thermite work (pure lies); something to do with faith. What temperature does thermite ignite at? Do you understand chemistry or are you taking the word of a known liar on 911 issues? Quote: There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication. OOPS, they paid to have it published and it is clearly politically biased tripe based on a fantasy made up by Jones. Ask a real scientist next time you take the time to research properly a subject well beyond your capabilities. You posted what you thought was great work and now you will be reduced to talk since you can't explain why the chips tested offered different energy levels than thermite would, some less, some more. Got chemistry? http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why...90814-310.html No you posted lies from other people as your work. Is that your failed doltish piece of poppycock? The real truth... Originally Posted by dudalb The name "cmatrix" should have told us what to expect. Take the Red Pill, dude,take the Red Pill............. Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite! Who needs the thermite scam made up by Jones? Jet fuel has more energy, Jones makes up lies.
	Last edited by beachnut; 11th September 2009 at 11:57 AM.

11th September 2009, 12:05 PM	#30
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by WildCat So do you agree with Harrit that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were used in the towers? Harrit is a chemistry professor, not a demolitions expert. This is no debunking of his findings. Ot is "100 tons" the logic negation of "we found nanothermite". I must have a problem with the english language. I would have thought "we found no nanothermite" would be debunking. You possibly have a problem with logic. But I am here to help you.
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203

11th September 2009, 12:07 PM	#31
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by beachnut Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite! Who needs the thermite scam made up by Jones? Jet fuel has more energy, Jones makes up lies. Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203

11th September 2009, 12:09 PM	#32
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by BigAl You are on ignore. It is a good idea. Other people might notice that you run out of arguments.
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203

11th September 2009, 12:11 PM	#33
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,902	Originally Posted by paulheinze Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact. But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again. Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking. I love how you dismiss 315 tons of TNT heat energy in each of the jet fuel impacts. Gee how much thermite did Jones bring to the WTC in his insane ideas? Please tell us exactly how much termite it takes!? You can't? What is the matter, you don't have the facts? Can't you do physics or chemistry?
	Last edited by beachnut; 11th September 2009 at 12:13 PM.

11th September 2009, 12:22 PM	#34
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203	Originally Posted by beachnut But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again. Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking. The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. Try it out, light a fire with paper on the motor block of your car. Maybe the paper wll melt through it and you prove me wrong. Or do it like the history channel, put a steel beam on one point and a pile of paper, wood or anything 10 meters away and let the vast amount of heat energy do the rest. Explosives have smaller energy densities because they contain the oxidizer, whereas paper needs air. This is also the reason why they react faster and can be more destructive.
paulheinze Thinker Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 203	Last edited by paulheinze; 11th September 2009 at 12:24 PM.

11th September 2009, 12:27 PM	#35
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Originally Posted by paulheinze The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. That's a plus as far as heating beams goes.
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.