FREE TAPATALK APP

grandmastershek · 19th November 2010, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish.

Of course. Highly respectable publishers spam for contributors, cherry pick the & avoid peer review process, & pass computer generated nonsense all the time.

triforcharity · 19th November 2010, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator

The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish.

In a sense, yes.

I don't like journals that publish horse ****. I don't like journals that reject someone's discussion (Mine) about one of their journal "papers", because I wasn't invited.

I also don't like journals that give other respectable journals a bad name. I don't like journals that claim to be scientific, but have no (proper) peer-review process in place.

In closing, Bentham and JO911S are sham journals. May as well sell them next to the National Enquirer and the TV Guide.

TruthMakesPeace · 6th December 2010, 09:15 PM

>"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry."

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI dot edu) near Boston, fournded in 1865, is one of the first American engineering and technology universities. In 2008, Forbes ranked it #9 in the nation for graduate success, as measured by their salaries (for what that is worth). BusinessWeek ranked WPI #1 in the nation among part time MBA programs. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is named for Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, who graduated from WPI in 1908. (Source: Wikipedia)

beachnut · 6th December 2010, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by cicorp

>"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry."

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI dot edu) near Boston, fournded in 1865, is one of the first American engineering and technology universities. In 2008, Forbes ranked it #9 in the nation for graduate success, as measured by their salaries (for what that is worth). BusinessWeek ranked WPI #1 in the nation among part time MBA programs. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is named for Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, who graduated from WPI in 1908. (Source: Wikipedia)

It does not matter how great or what school it is, confirming Harrit's results, failure, nonsense.

excaza · 6th December 2010, 10:11 PM

If we're just going to take education as the gold standard, as a graduate student at WPI, you should listen to everything I have to say.

A W Smith · 6th December 2010, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by cicorp

>"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry."

Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI dot edu) near Boston, fournded in 1865, is one of the first American engineering and technology universities. In 2008, Forbes ranked it #9 in the nation for graduate success, as measured by their salaries (for what that is worth). BusinessWeek ranked WPI #1 in the nation among part time MBA programs. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is named for Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, who graduated from WPI in 1908. (Source: Wikipedia)

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...ts.html#expert

Sunstealer · 7th December 2010, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by cicorp

>"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry."

And I'm completely unfamiliar with material analytical techniques such as FTIR which a) would characterize the material found in Harrit et al's paper (especially the organic constituent) and b) don't realise that analytical chemical laboratories commonly have such a machine.

I also bang on about thermate on youtube when the paper that I refer to found no significant evidence of Sulphur, which is acknowledged by the papers' authors.

Ho hum.

ElMondoHummus · 7th December 2010, 06:32 AM

Do truthers really need to be reminded of something from the first page of this very thread?

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Why is this news? Mr. Basile was acknowledged in the original paper. We already knew his opinion, years ago.

What's needed is independent confirmation, which we all know will never, ever happen.

And the Truthers still haven't figured out that their own data proves it isn't nanothermite...

My bolding. What Ryan said is as true now as it was back in October. Nothing has changed.

Oystein · 7th December 2010, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Please go check the list of 1300+ architects and engineers on AE911T.org

Search for "Basile": He is not there.
Search for "chemical engineer": You will find 23

Basile either did not sign the Petition, or AE911T does not consider him an engineer. There is no third option.
We shall see when they bring the "supporters" list back.
...

Update:

Mark Basile is now listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)" - he wasn't 3 weeks ago. The number of "Chemical Engineers" has increased to 23. Can't tell now whether he signed the list since november 17, or whether they promoted him from "Supporter".
Basile's User Profile

The Supporters List is back, split into 52 pages.

twinstead · 7th December 2010, 10:22 AM

Why is it none of these "engineering professionals (degreed only)" are defending themselves? Don't they realize that their peers think they may possibly be nuts?

Grizzly Bear · 7th December 2010, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by twinstead

Why is it none of these "engineering professionals (degreed only)" are defending themselves? Don't they realize that their peers think they may possibly be nuts?

For them there is no such thing as criticism. If you dare somehow manage to communicate a comment their response is a resounding STFU, much like Chandler makes a policy of with his youtube videos

GlennB · 7th December 2010, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Update:

Mark Basile is now listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)" - he wasn't 3 weeks ago. The number of "Chemical Engineers" has increased to 23. Can't tell now whether he signed the list since november 17, or whether they promoted him from "Supporter".
Basile's User Profile

Basile's profile includes the semi-coherent 'Personal 9/11 statement' :

"Get some dust and look for the metallic microspheres and red/gray chips. The spheres are evidence of temperatures beyond the capability of jet fuel, and the chips produce molten iron droplets when ignited!"

p.s. can't help but notice they still have Gordon Ross's piffle amongst their many featured articles

triforcharity · 7th December 2010, 02:51 PM

Due to the recent cold snap, I made a nice fire for me and Mrs. Tri in the back yard. Simple little fire using scrap wood from around the house.

I have collected a sample, and will be sending it to a lab buddy of mine to run through a couple of different tests.

I'll let you know what comes back.

I'm betting that there is some elemental iron in there.

ElMondoHummus · 7th December 2010, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Almond

More to the point: The reputations of these "journals" is not established, and from what they've published so far, they're certainly not likely to become rising stars.

What tfc has been trying to point out (among others) is that, if what Harrit, Basile, Jones, and Farrer say is true, it would be the biggest scientific news story on the planet. If the science were sound, there are a dozen journals in analytical chemistry, forensics, explosives, fire and materials science research that would be falling over themselves to publish it. The only thing the nano-thermite wonks would have to do in order to submit such an article is format the paper, and submit it to the editorship for review.

As a researcher myself, I can assure you that when I've got important or interesting data to present, I don't first publish it in a vanity journal. If I think the research is good and of broad interest, I'll submit to Nature or Science. If they reject the article, I go to Analytical Chemistry, Nature Methods, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Physical Review, or Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. Failing those journals, I would probably select a more discipline specific journal like Fire Research, Cement and Concrete Research, X-ray Spectrometry or ACI Materials. Failing acceptance at those journals, I would try a trade magazine like Chemical Engineering News or Engineering News Record. Failing all of those options, I would publish in a pay-to-publish online journal in the hope that my reference would come up in a random Google search.

Jones, Harrit and Farrer have all followed roughly the same strategy for all of their legitimate scientific careers. Why on Earth would they skip steps 1-4 and go straight to an online vanity journal for this one paper?

The Almond is of course correct, and 100% on point with this. There is a definite difference in credibility between commonly accepted science journals and pay-to-publish ones. This is not to say that open source journals have no place in research publishing, nor that vanity publishing also is similarly a Persona non grata, so to speak, in that world. However, there's no question that open source and vanity publishing houses (yes, they're two separate things normally, it's just that Bentham happens to be both) are definitely a second (or third, or lower) class of publisher in terms of acceptibility, reliability... well heck, credibility when compared to more mainstream ones.

So given that they can, should they choose, reside in the same world, what would separate those legitimate OA and vanity publishers from the joke ones? The obvious answer is how they conduct themselves. And it's been amply demonstrated that Bentham does not conduct itself well. Ryan Mackey throughout the following thread investigated them and discovered serious editorial problems calling into account their credulity and reviewing process:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489

Two posts in particular stand out:

... but all of what he discovered and described is worth reading.

And Ryan was not the only one to find problems. Peter Surber at Earlham college has made multiple posts on his site documenting the problems people have discovered with that journal:

To wit:

Originally Posted by Peter Surber, Open Access News

The Davis-Anderson hoax clearly uncovered incompetence at this Bentham journal. We have to ask whether the journal lies about performing peer review or just performs it so badly that it's equivalent to no review at all. Even if the journal were cynically trying to maximize revenue from publication fees, a competent scam would not have accepted the Davis drivel...

Link added to explain what exactly the "Davis drivel" is (it was a submission of a complete nonsense paper to Bentham Open), rather than include the information in the quote.

Originally Posted by Peter Surber, Open Access News

... There's no doubt that OA journals can be strong or weak, just as TA journals can be strong or weak. The question is whether we're dealing with a very weak journal or with something larger.

And from that last link:

Originally Posted by Peter Surber, Open Access News

In April, Marie-Paule Pileni, editor in chief of Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal, resigned when the journal published a 9/11 conspiracy-theory paper without her knowledge or approval. Now Parmanto is saying that he never saw the nonsense submission and doesn't have full control of what the journal accepts. It's time for Bentham to explain how peer review works or is supposed to work at Bentham journals.

You distinguish yourself by how you conduct yourself. A restaurant, no matter what sorts of airs it gives itself, will never be a gourmet destination if both its food and its service is better characterized as "fast food" quality. A doctor, even if degreed from a legitimate medical school, will not be conducting him/herself as a doctor if he/she continually ignores the professionally established standard of care, or worse yet, acts in detrimental contradiction to it. And a publishing house, no matter who they add to their editorial board and how many science topics they attempt to cover, will never be a credible source if they conduct themselves in a way that's antithetical to responsible peer review and publication processes.

Bentham Open has earned its reputation through its conduct.

----------

But that's not the end. Any claim that's ever advanced must also be judged on its own merits; failing to do so is failing to be a critical thinker. Just because we condemn Bentham doesn't necessarily mean that all works published there are faulty. It opens the question, certainly. And it hinders credibility because the basic trustworthiness of the published work is in doubt. But claims are judged on their own, and that's where the Jones/Harrit paper fails. See the links above that I published, plus these:

In particular, pay attention to the first link from the Science/Math/Medicine/Technology subforum that managed to have a much lower noise-to-signal ratio than what's often found here in CT, as well as these two posts by Sunstealer, which speak directly towards the central claims made in the Jones/Harrit Bentham paper:

There are more threads and posts buried in various places on the objections, but the bottom line is that the work fails on its own, even ignoring what publication is housing it.

And last, let's also put to rest this notion that our objections are suspect because we "don't like" the paper or the publishing house. Our objections have always been and will always be firmly rooted in the egregious errors and invalid conclusions drawn in the paper, and the sloppy editorial practices and lack of critical review on the part of the publisher. This has been demonstrated in other threads. Dislike does not drive our analysis; that's nothing more than an attempt to discredit conclusions we've reached through analysis. It is true that many of us here dislike the fact that the Jones/Harrit crew has attempted to hoodwink other people, and that truthers are swallowing it uncritically because it has the veneer of science (which is why I call it cargo-cult science; it's the motions undertaken in that paper, not the substance). But our conclusions about the lack of validity and credibility are formed well before that point and are well supported, thus well justified.

The bottom line is this: The paper is unreliable because it makes claims unsupported, and in parts openly contradicted by the data presented. Whether that paper appeared in Bentham Open, the National Enquirer, Nature, or the Journal of Analytical Chemistry, wrong is wrong, and incorrect is incorrect. But above and beyond that, the editorial practices of Bentham Open are sloppy and well deserving of criticism. Bentham suffers from publishing poor, sloppy work such as the Jones/Harrit paper, and the Jones/Harrit paper suffers from being published in Bentham Open. The combination of the unreputable publishing house with the sloppy and refuted work is a perfect storm of incorrect, bad research. Which is why we criticise it. And why truthers denigrate our conclusions with unspecific charges, like us not "liking" Bentham. They can't argue the hard facts, and the facts are that Bentham is not credible and neither is the Jones Harrit paper. QED.

16.5 · 8th December 2010, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

They can't argue the hard facts, and the facts are that Bentham is not credible and neither is the Jones Harrit paper. QED.

I assume it has been mentioned that one of Jones' "independent peer reviewers" was noted Truther crack pot David L. Griscom of the "passengers were in on it" theory.

Wonder where Bentham got his name?

What an overwhelming cluster **** this stupid paper has been for the truthers.

They are all guilty of academic and intellectual fraud.

moorea34 · 8th December 2010, 11:34 AM

Jones, Harrit and Farrer said that Tillotson used air atmosphrere for its tests in his paper... it's false !!

Tillotson and al. have done the tests under: "ultra pure nitrogen"

Why? Because their samples contained organic material. In the paper they give 10 % of mass for these impurities (epoxyde, solvent). So, they used logically "ultra pure nitrogen"...

excaza · 8th December 2010, 11:41 AM

cool

R.Mackey · 8th December 2010, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by moorea34

Jones, Harrit and Farrer said that Tillotson used air atmosphrere for its tests in his paper... it's false !!

Tillotson and al. have done the tests under: "ultra pure nitrogen"

Why? Because their samples contained organic material. In the paper they give 10 % of mass for these impurities (epoxyde, solvent). So, they used logically "ultra pure nitrogen"...

Do you have a source for this?

The paper in J. Non-Crystalline Solids (2001) didn't specify. However, I never did contact Dr. Tillotson directly.

ElMondoHummus · 8th December 2010, 12:37 PM

Yeah. I just went through the paper too. I don't see it either. There are references to nitrogen adsorpsion/desorpsion, but I thought that was in reference to the nitrogen in the sol gel "skeleton" (Tillotson's word) itself.

I'd be happy to be told where to find that info, though. I, too, would like to see a source.

moorea34 · 8th December 2010, 01:25 PM

It is not in the paper...

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Do you have a source for this?

The paper in J. Non-Crystalline Solids (2001) didn't specify. However, I never did contact Dr. Tillotson directly.

You should

Oystein · 10th December 2011, 05:16 AM

Mark Basile's analysis of his own dust sample can be seen in this video, of which I provide a summary now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#!

According to the presentation, between 30:00 and 31:26 minutes, he received a bag with "a few table-spoons" of dust collected by Janette MacKinlay in January 2008. Janette MacKinlay is one of the four contributors of dust samples to Harrit e.al.. The dust had been collected from

"her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building. The building was closed for entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art piece" (Bentham paper, page 9).

Basile isolated various dust particles from the sample, using a magnet and a petri dish, among them “iron based microsperes, Red/gray chips, Red chips, Rust, Wire”, also “Silicate or glassy spheres”.

(screenshot taken at 32:07)

One particular red/gray flake, designated “#13”, was photographed through a microscope (at 39:00),

and analysed using XEDS and then heated till ignition, and the burning recorded on video through a microspcope.

Here is the XEDS data, shown at 39:30 in the video:

This is how he describes the heating (40:17):

I am not showing the burn video sequence here. I don't think screenshots do it justice. It's at 41:42 - 41:59 in the video.

The XEDS graph resembles closely Fig. 7c in Harrit e.al., albeit with relatively less Fe or more Al and Si. While we have doubts about the precision of the Weight % listed in the table, we note that the weight proportion of Si : Al, 1.71% : 1.68%, translates to molar proportions of 98 : 100, in other words, according to Basile's calculation, there are only 2% fewer Si atoms in the red material than Al atoms.

We further note that about 73% carbon represents > 90% organic matrix. 2.63% Fe could represent 3.76% Fe₂O₃, binding 1.13% O. 1.71% Si could represent 7,86% aluminium silicate (kaolinite, Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄), binding 4.38% O. All other elements together are 1.8%.

If all the Al were elemental, and in a perfectly stoichiometric mix with Fe₂O₃ to form thermite, then 1.68% Al would require 3.48% Fe – Basile only found 2.63% Fe. Since Fe is 52.28% by weight of perfectly stoichiometric thermite, the red layer could at most contain 5.03% thermite. With ideal thermite having a theoretical maximum energy density of 3.9 kJ/g (see Harrit e.al., page 27), the red layer as a whole could at most inherit 5.03% of that, or about 196 J/g, from Fe-Al thermite. Most organic compounds have energy densities anywhere between 15 and 40 kJ/g. Assuming a reasonable average value of 20 kJ/g, and 90% organic matrix, the latter would add 18,000 J/g of energy density to the red material, or more than 90 times as much as the supposed thermite under the most ideal of circumstances.

Miragememories · 10th December 2011, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by moorea34

Jones, Harrit and Farrer said that Tillotson used air atmosphrere for its tests in his paper... it's false !!

Tillotson and al. have done the tests under: "ultra pure nitrogen"

Why? Because their samples contained organic material. In the paper they give 10 % of mass for these impurities (epoxyde, solvent). So, they used logically "ultra pure nitrogen"...

I had this question presented to Dr. Harrit and he clearly stated he contacted Tillotson about this point and was told that the DSC testing was done in an open air environment.

His statement can be found on YouTube during the Q&A at the end of his presentation at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto.

If you have contradictory evidence, we need something more than just your say so to make it believable.

MM

leftysergeant · 10th December 2011, 06:28 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

One particular red/gray flake, designated “#13”,

Wow! This is the first time I have seen this chip photographed from the underside."(Grey.)

THis shot proves that the grey layer is not part of a thermite device as described in any twoofer spew of blather.

The grey layer is a bit of the steel element to which the red substance (It's actually paint.) was applied.

Look at the surface textrue of the grey layer.

Compare it to a polished and etched iron meteorite.

We have identified the substance forming the grey layer.

leftysergeant · 10th December 2011, 06:31 AM

Sorry, but a picture failled to upload, so I shall try that again.

The grey layer is just a flake of the steel to which the paint was applied.

leftysergeant · 10th December 2011, 06:45 AM

Okay. This just keeps getting better. What are those two round objects embedded into the paint?

Iron microspheres, maybe? Some bit of airborne residue that was not cleaned off the steel before the paint was applied?

000063 · 10th December 2011, 07:18 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I had this question presented to Dr. Harrit and he clearly stated he contacted Tillotson about this point and was told that the DSC testing was done in an open air environment.

His statement can be found on YouTube during the Q&A at the end of his presentation at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto.

If you have contradictory evidence, we need something more than just your say so to make it believable.

MM

Said the man who just made a claim about a Youtube video without linking to it.

DGM · 10th December 2011, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by 000063

Said the man who just made a claim about a Youtube video without linking to it.

Do you really want to see another link to the Toronto show.

000063 · 10th December 2011, 09:49 AM

No, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Mudcat · 10th December 2011, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

1) Linear Thermite Cutting Apparatus; US Patent 6183569, Linear Thermite Cutting Apparatus; US Patent Application No. 2006/0266204. Could have been used to cut resisting core and perimeter columns which would have stopped a fire-initiated gravity-driven collapse.

Highlight mine. Just because it could have been done (and no, it could not have) doesn't mean that it was. Where is the evidence that they were used or even existed?

Originally Posted by cmatrix

2) The same way the Manhattan Project was kept secret for so long: need to know, compartmentalization, sworn to secrecy etc.

Difference here being that the Manhattan Project wasn't illegal. A 9/11 conspiracy, such as the one you and truthers suggest happened, would almost certainly would be. If it had been a conspiracy someone would have talked by now.

Oystein · 10th December 2011, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Wow! This is the first time I have seen this chip photographed from the underside."(Grey.)

THis shot proves that the grey layer is not part of a thermite device as described in any twoofer spew of blather.

The grey layer is a bit of the steel element to which the red substance (It's actually paint.) was applied.

Look at the surface textrue of the grey layer.

Compare it to a polished and etched iron meteorite.

We have identified the substance forming the grey layer.

In that image, the grey surface on the left, with the parallel horizontal stripes, does not belong to the chip. I think I remember it's a steel blade that Basile used to sort the dust or cut the chips.

Miragememories · 10th December 2011, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

Said the man who just made a claim about a Youtube video without linking to it.

Why, is it too difficult to find even though I gave you enough info that even a 5-year old old could google it?

MM

000063 · 10th December 2011, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Why, is it too difficult to find even though I gave you enough info that even a 5-year old old could google it?

MM

You decried someone for not presenting information, right after you failed to present it yourself. Like you said, a five year old could Google it. So why haven't you, and shown it to us?

Robrob · 10th December 2011, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Why, is it too difficult to find even though I gave you enough info that even a 5-year old old could google it?

MM

So you won't because...?

leftysergeant · 11th December 2011, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

In that image, the grey surface on the left, with the parallel horizontal stripes, does not belong to the chip. I think I remember it's a steel blade that Basile used to sort the dust or cut the chips.

I was referring to the area to the right of the screen. We can clearly see when we blow it up the the grey substance displays a cubical fracture pattern, as though it were composed of tightly-packed rectangular crystals.

That is slightly oxidized steel.

To the left of that, that round object that I circled looks like on of the much-ought-after steel microspheres.There also appear to be more-or-less spherical globs of iron at the top right of the red chip.

I see no way that the grey material is in any way a part of a thermitic device.

Oystein · 11th December 2011, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I was referring to the area to the right of the screen. We can clearly see when we blow it up the the grey substance displays a cubical fracture pattern, as though it were composed of tightly-packed rectangular crystals.

That is slightly oxidized steel.

To the left of that, that round object that I circled looks like on of the much-ought-after steel microspheres.There also appear to be more-or-less spherical globs of iron at the top right of the red chip.

I see no way that the grey material is in any way a part of a thermitic device.

I don't think anyone, including Harrit e.al., has ever proposed anything about anything for the gray matter that somehow plays into any thermite theory. Harrit's data shows it's iron oxide, with possibly a tiny blip at 5.9keV for manganese in Fig. 6 a, b and d, which would point to regular A36 steel. So it this fits the LaClede theory well, since the majority of the steel LaClede used for the floor joists was a variety of A36 that contained a wee bit above 1% of manganese. Harrit and other truthes speculate that their "thermite" may have been "painted" or "sprayed" on strcutural steel, so really you are blowing everyone's horn.

As for the tiny specks that you circle - I think they are too small to be identified or properly described. Just a small number of pixels, and gone through several steps of deletrious image manipulation - not least of which are the steps
- Someone takes original photo, with all its limitations of focus and resolution
- Probably some "enhancing"
- Basile crops and resizes it to put into presentation
- Someone copies it into lower res video
- possible further video compression
- I make a screenshot
- and resize again
These specks look roundish, but you can't know if they are truly spheres or just small without pointed edges.

Miragememories · 11th December 2011, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

"I was referring to the area to the right of the screen. We can clearly see when we blow it up the the grey substance displays a cubical fracture pattern, as though it were composed of tightly-packed rectangular crystals.

That is slightly oxidized steel.

To the left of that, that round object that I circled looks like on of the much-ought-after steel microspheres.There also appear to be more-or-less spherical globs of iron at the top right of the red chip.

I see no way that the grey material is in any way a part of a thermitic device."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"I don't think anyone, including Harrit e.al., has ever proposed anything about anything for the gray matter that somehow plays into any thermite theory. Harrit's data shows it's iron oxide, with possibly a tiny blip at 5.9keV for manganese in Fig. 6 a, b and d, which would point to regular A36 steel. So it this fits the LaClede theory well, since the majority of the steel LaClede used for the floor joists was a variety of A36 that contained a wee bit above 1% of manganese. Harrit and other truthes speculate that their "thermite" may have been "painted" or "sprayed" on strcutural steel, so really you are blowing everyone's horn..."

Well rather than listen to what you think you recall Oystein, why not consult the source directly?

From the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe;

"The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon."

"In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers."

Fig. (31). Photomicrograph of a red/gray chip found in sample 3, showing multiple layers and an unusual light-gray layer between the red layers.

"...The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig.(33) in which iron is not seen, while the outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those displayed in Fig. (6).
Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material."

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones

"Dr. Steven Jones: There are a lot of questions that came up during the paper that have been left unanswered, or unanswered, but need to be answered. Just an example; what is the gray layer? What is the purpose of the gray layer?
We know it has a lot of iron, we know it has a lot of oxygen. We found that there is a hematite phase [reddish-black mineral consisting of ferric oxide] but there are other phases present in that gray layer and we don't quite know what that gray layer is and how it is adhered to the red layer. Certainly further study needs to be done.
Occasionally we would find an intermediate layer between the red layer and the gray layer which was rich in carbon. Perhaps a polymer type layer. But, again, we need to go further with that study to determine what those things are."

I see no pointed reference to manganese which suggests that "possibly tiny blip for manganese" you are weighing heavily on to bolster your Laclede primer paint hypothesis, is indeed nothing more than background noise.

You will milk the weakest evidence to support your failed primer paint hypothesis though.

MM

DGM · 11th December 2011, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones
"Dr. Steven Jones: There are a lot of questions that came up during the paper that have been left unanswered, or unanswered, but need to be answered. Just an example; what is the gray layer? What is the purpose of the gray layer?
We know it has a lot of iron, we know it has a lot of oxygen. We found that there is a hematite phase [reddish-black mineral consisting of ferric oxide] but there are other phases present in that gray layer and we don't quite know what that gray layer is and how it is adhered to the red layer. Certainly further study needs to be done.
Occasionally we would find an intermediate layer between the red layer and the gray layer which was rich in carbon. Perhaps a polymer type layer. But, again, we need to go further with that study to determine what those things are."

Holy crap!!!!!!!! The steel was rusting and was contaminated with organic compounds. Never see that happen in nature.

(he's actually saying, he has no idea how paint would look on rusted metal)

Oystein · 11th December 2011, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Well rather than listen to what you think you recall Oystein, why not consult the source directly?

From the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe;

"The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon."

"In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers."

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8637/fig31.jpg
Fig. (31). Photomicrograph of a red/gray chip found in sample 3, showing multiple layers and an unusual light-gray layer between the red layers.

"...The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig.(33) in which iron is not seen, while the outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those displayed in Fig. (6).
Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material."

Thanks for pulling up quotes that totally confirm how Harrit and Jones have no clue what role the iron oxide layers would play in their thermite fantasy and leave it to future research.
It was quite unnescessary. Every reader of this thread was probably already thoroughly aware of the fact that Harrit e.alk. never proposed anything about the gray matter that somehow plays into any thermite theory.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I see no pointed reference to manganese which suggests that "possibly tiny blip for manganese" you are weighing heavily on to bolster your Laclede primer paint hypothesis, is indeed nothing more than background noise.

You will milk the weakest evidence to support your failed primer paint hypothesis though.

MM

MM, it's in the data, simple. I am fully aware that Harrit e.al. did not mention the clear hump in the data at 5.9keV, the K-alpha level of manganese. You seem to think that something is not there just because some folks don't talk about it, but everyone can look at the data in Harrit e.al, figure 6 a, b and d, and see that hump. It's there. It's quite likely mangangese and not white noise.

You see, Harrit e.al.'s data is fairly good, has always been good. It's their faulty interpretation that obviously sucks.

Miragememories · 11th December 2011, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

"...Harrit's data shows it's iron oxide, with possibly a tiny blip at 5.9keV for manganese. So it this fits the LaClede theory well, since the majority of the steel LaClede used for the floor joists was a variety of A36 that contained a wee bit above 1% of manganese..."

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"I see no pointed reference to manganese which suggests that "possibly tiny blip for manganese" you are weighing heavily on to bolster your Laclede primer paint hypothesis, is indeed nothing more than background noise.

You will milk the weakest evidence to support your failed primer paint hypothesis though."

Originally Posted by Oystein

"MM, it's in the data, simple. I am fully aware that Harrit e.al. did not mention the clear hump in the data at 5.9keV, the K-alpha level of manganese. You seem to think that something is not there just because some folks don't talk about it, but everyone can look at the data in Harrit e.al, figure 6 a, b and d, and see that hump. It's there. It's quite likely mangangese and not white noise.

You see, Harrit e.al.'s data is fairly good, has always been good. It's their faulty interpretation that obviously sucks."

So a possible tiny blip for manganese has now blossomed into a clear hump in the data.

And you have the mendacity to talk about faulty data interpretation and fantasy.

Too funny.

MM

Oystein · 11th December 2011, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

So a possible tiny blip for manganese has now blossomed into a clear hump in the data.

And you have the mendacity to talk about faulty data interpretation and fantasy.

Too funny.

MM

As usual, you fail to think scientifically.

There is a clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese, in fig. 6 a, b, and d.
MM, please answer this, clearly and unambiguously: Do you clearly see a hump in the data at 5.9 keV in fig. 6 a, b, and d? YES or NO? Is 5.9 keV the K-Alpha-level of manganese? YES or NO?
Is "There is possibly some manganese in the sample" a possible interpretation of this clear hump in the data at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha level of manganese? YES or NO?

These two questions are aimed at helping you understand the difference between data and interpretation. Maybe you will then understand why a clear hump in the data translates only to a possible interpretation of the hump as presence of manganese.

ETA: Here are cropped portions of 6a and 6d, including the aforementioned humps. Who can see them?

19th November 2010, 09:36 AM	#441
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye... Posts: 1,324	Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish. Of course. Highly respectable publishers spam for contributors, cherry pick the & avoid peer review process, & pass computer generated nonsense all the time.
	__________________ For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)

19th November 2010, 03:16 PM	#442
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,612	Originally Posted by 9/11-investigator The reason why we see JO911S and Bentham as not respectable is that we don't like what they publish. In a sense, yes. I don't like journals that publish horse ****. I don't like journals that reject someone's discussion (Mine) about one of their journal "papers", because I wasn't invited. I also don't like journals that give other respectable journals a bad name. I don't like journals that claim to be scientific, but have no (proper) peer-review process in place. In closing, Bentham and JO911S are sham journals. May as well sell them next to the National Enquirer and the TV Guide.
	__________________ "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

6th December 2010, 09:15 PM	#443
TruthMakesPeace Banned Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Washington DC Posts: 291	>"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry." Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI dot edu) near Boston, fournded in 1865, is one of the first American engineering and technology universities. In 2008, Forbes ranked it #9 in the nation for graduate success, as measured by their salaries (for what that is worth). BusinessWeek ranked WPI #1 in the nation among part time MBA programs. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is named for Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, who graduated from WPI in 1908. (Source: Wikipedia)
	Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 6th December 2010 at 09:18 PM. Reason: to clarify which post I am responding to

6th December 2010, 09:37 PM	#444
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,950	Originally Posted by cicorp >"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry." Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI dot edu) near Boston, fournded in 1865, is one of the first American engineering and technology universities. In 2008, Forbes ranked it #9 in the nation for graduate success, as measured by their salaries (for what that is worth). BusinessWeek ranked WPI #1 in the nation among part time MBA programs. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is named for Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, who graduated from WPI in 1908. (Source: Wikipedia) It does not matter how great or what school it is, confirming Harrit's results, failure, nonsense.
	Last edited by beachnut; 6th December 2010 at 09:46 PM.

6th December 2010, 10:11 PM	#445
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	If we're just going to take education as the gold standard, as a graduate student at WPI, you should listen to everything I have to say.
	__________________

6th December 2010, 11:10 PM	#446
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	Originally Posted by cicorp >"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry." Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI dot edu) near Boston, fournded in 1865, is one of the first American engineering and technology universities. In 2008, Forbes ranked it #9 in the nation for graduate success, as measured by their salaries (for what that is worth). BusinessWeek ranked WPI #1 in the nation among part time MBA programs. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center is named for Robert Goddard, the father of rocketry, who graduated from WPI in 1908. (Source: Wikipedia) http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...ts.html#expert
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

7th December 2010, 06:24 AM	#447
Sunstealer Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 2,612	Originally Posted by cicorp >"My name is Marc Basile. I'm a chemical engineer. I have a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from Whistler (?) Polytechnical Institute. I have worked for about 25 years in industry." And I'm completely unfamiliar with material analytical techniques such as FTIR which a) would characterize the material found in Harrit et al's paper (especially the organic constituent) and b) don't realise that analytical chemical laboratories commonly have such a machine. I also bang on about thermate on youtube when the paper that I refer to found no significant evidence of Sulphur, which is acknowledged by the papers' authors. Ho hum.
	__________________ Proof that thermite was NOT discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Proof of Tnemec red primer paint in Harrit et al paper.

7th December 2010, 06:32 AM	#448
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Do truthers really need to be reminded of something from the first page of this very thread? Originally Posted by R.Mackey Why is this news? Mr. Basile was acknowledged in the original paper. We already knew his opinion, years ago. What's needed is independent confirmation, which we all know will never, ever happen. And the Truthers still haven't figured out that their own data proves it isn't nanothermite... My bolding. What Ryan said is as true now as it was back in October. Nothing has changed.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

7th December 2010, 07:34 AM	#449
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by Oystein Please go check the list of 1300+ architects and engineers on AE911T.org Search for "Basile": He is not there. Search for "chemical engineer": You will find 23 Basile either did not sign the Petition, or AE911T does not consider him an engineer. There is no third option. We shall see when they bring the "supporters" list back. ... Update: Mark Basile is now listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)" - he wasn't 3 weeks ago. The number of "Chemical Engineers" has increased to 23. Can't tell now whether he signed the list since november 17, or whether they promoted him from "Supporter". Basile's User Profile The Supporters List is back, split into 52 pages.

7th December 2010, 10:22 AM	#450
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	Why is it none of these "engineering professionals (degreed only)" are defending themselves? Don't they realize that their peers think they may possibly be nuts?
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

7th December 2010, 10:50 AM	#451
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	Originally Posted by twinstead Why is it none of these "engineering professionals (degreed only)" are defending themselves? Don't they realize that their peers think they may possibly be nuts? For them there is no such thing as criticism. If you dare somehow manage to communicate a comment their response is a resounding STFU, much like Chandler makes a policy of with his youtube videos
Grizzly Bear このマスクによっ Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 5,692	__________________ Graduation on 8/13/2011 8D

7th December 2010, 02:28 PM	#452
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 9,203	Originally Posted by Oystein Update: Mark Basile is now listed under "Engineering Professionals (Degreed Only)" - he wasn't 3 weeks ago. The number of "Chemical Engineers" has increased to 23. Can't tell now whether he signed the list since november 17, or whether they promoted him from "Supporter". Basile's User Profile Basile's profile includes the semi-coherent 'Personal 9/11 statement' : "Get some dust and look for the metallic microspheres and red/gray chips. The spheres are evidence of temperatures beyond the capability of jet fuel, and the chips produce molten iron droplets when ignited!" p.s. can't help but notice they still have Gordon Ross's piffle amongst their many featured articles

7th December 2010, 02:51 PM	#453
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,612	Due to the recent cold snap, I made a nice fire for me and Mrs. Tri in the back yard. Simple little fire using scrap wood from around the house. I have collected a sample, and will be sending it to a lab buddy of mine to run through a couple of different tests. I'll let you know what comes back. I'm betting that there is some elemental iron in there.
	__________________ "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

7th December 2010, 04:14 PM	#454
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by The Almond More to the point: The reputations of these "journals" is not established, and from what they've published so far, they're certainly not likely to become rising stars. What tfc has been trying to point out (among others) is that, if what Harrit, Basile, Jones, and Farrer say is true, it would be the biggest scientific news story on the planet. If the science were sound, there are a dozen journals in analytical chemistry, forensics, explosives, fire and materials science research that would be falling over themselves to publish it. The only thing the nano-thermite wonks would have to do in order to submit such an article is format the paper, and submit it to the editorship for review. As a researcher myself, I can assure you that when I've got important or interesting data to present, I don't first publish it in a vanity journal. If I think the research is good and of broad interest, I'll submit to Nature or Science. If they reject the article, I go to Analytical Chemistry, Nature Methods, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, Physical Review, or Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. Failing those journals, I would probably select a more discipline specific journal like Fire Research, Cement and Concrete Research, X-ray Spectrometry or ACI Materials. Failing acceptance at those journals, I would try a trade magazine like Chemical Engineering News or Engineering News Record. Failing all of those options, I would publish in a pay-to-publish online journal in the hope that my reference would come up in a random Google search. Jones, Harrit and Farrer have all followed roughly the same strategy for all of their legitimate scientific careers. Why on Earth would they skip steps 1-4 and go straight to an online vanity journal for this one paper? The Almond is of course correct, and 100% on point with this. There is a definite difference in credibility between commonly accepted science journals and pay-to-publish ones. This is not to say that open source journals have no place in research publishing, nor that vanity publishing also is similarly a Persona non grata, so to speak, in that world. However, there's no question that open source and vanity publishing houses (yes, they're two separate things normally, it's just that Bentham happens to be both) are definitely a second (or third, or lower) class of publisher in terms of acceptibility, reliability... well heck, credibility when compared to more mainstream ones. So given that they can, should they choose, reside in the same world, what would separate those legitimate OA and vanity publishers from the joke ones? The obvious answer is how they conduct themselves. And it's been amply demonstrated that Bentham does not conduct itself well. Ryan Mackey throughout the following thread investigated them and discovered serious editorial problems calling into account their credulity and reviewing process: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110489 Two posts in particular stand out: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...54#post3662754 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...78#post3720078 ... but all of what he discovered and described is worth reading. And Ryan was not the only one to find problems. Peter Surber at Earlham college has made multiple posts on his site documenting the problems people have discovered with that journal: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...-worse-at.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...r-bentham.html http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2...rs-resign.html To wit: Originally Posted by Peter Surber, Open Access News The Davis-Anderson hoax clearly uncovered incompetence at this Bentham journal. We have to ask whether the journal lies about performing peer review or just performs it so badly that it's equivalent to no review at all. Even if the journal were cynically trying to maximize revenue from publication fees, a competent scam would not have accepted the Davis drivel... Link added to explain what exactly the "Davis drivel" is (it was a submission of a complete nonsense paper to Bentham Open), rather than include the information in the quote. Originally Posted by Peter Surber, Open Access News ... There's no doubt that OA journals can be strong or weak, just as TA journals can be strong or weak. The question is whether we're dealing with a very weak journal or with something larger. And from that last link: Originally Posted by Peter Surber, Open Access News In April, Marie-Paule Pileni, editor in chief of Bentham's Open Chemical Physics Journal, resigned when the journal published a 9/11 conspiracy-theory paper without her knowledge or approval. Now Parmanto is saying that he never saw the nonsense submission and doesn't have full control of what the journal accepts. It's time for Bentham to explain how peer review works or is supposed to work at Bentham journals. You distinguish yourself by how you conduct yourself. A restaurant, no matter what sorts of airs it gives itself, will never be a gourmet destination if both its food and its service is better characterized as "fast food" quality. A doctor, even if degreed from a legitimate medical school, will not be conducting him/herself as a doctor if he/she continually ignores the professionally established standard of care, or worse yet, acts in detrimental contradiction to it. And a publishing house, no matter who they add to their editorial board and how many science topics they attempt to cover, will never be a credible source if they conduct themselves in a way that's antithetical to responsible peer review and publication processes. Bentham Open has earned its reputation through its conduct. ---------- But that's not the end. Any claim that's ever advanced must also be judged on its own merits; failing to do so is failing to be a critical thinker. Just because we condemn Bentham doesn't necessarily mean that all works published there are faulty. It opens the question, certainly. And it hinders credibility because the basic trustworthiness of the published work is in doubt. But claims are judged on their own, and that's where the Jones/Harrit paper fails. See the links above that I published, plus these: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140426 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139293 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140017 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=153478 In particular, pay attention to the first link from the Science/Math/Medicine/Technology subforum that managed to have a much lower noise-to-signal ratio than what's often found here in CT, as well as these two posts by Sunstealer, which speak directly towards the central claims made in the Jones/Harrit Bentham paper: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...postcount=1694 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...58#post4659658 There are more threads and posts buried in various places on the objections, but the bottom line is that the work fails on its own, even ignoring what publication is housing it. And last, let's also put to rest this notion that our objections are suspect because we "don't like" the paper or the publishing house. Our objections have always been and will always be firmly rooted in the egregious errors and invalid conclusions drawn in the paper, and the sloppy editorial practices and lack of critical review on the part of the publisher. This has been demonstrated in other threads. Dislike does not drive our analysis; that's nothing more than an attempt to discredit conclusions we've reached through analysis. It is true that many of us here dislike the fact that the Jones/Harrit crew has attempted to hoodwink other people, and that truthers are swallowing it uncritically because it has the veneer of science (which is why I call it cargo-cult science; it's the motions undertaken in that paper, not the substance). But our conclusions about the lack of validity and credibility are formed well before that point and are well supported, thus well justified. The bottom line is this: The paper is unreliable because it makes claims unsupported, and in parts openly contradicted by the data presented. Whether that paper appeared in Bentham Open, the National Enquirer, Nature, or the Journal of Analytical Chemistry, wrong is wrong, and incorrect is incorrect. But above and beyond that, the editorial practices of Bentham Open are sloppy and well deserving of criticism. Bentham suffers from publishing poor, sloppy work such as the Jones/Harrit paper, and the Jones/Harrit paper suffers from being published in Bentham Open. The combination of the unreputable publishing house with the sloppy and refuted work is a perfect storm of incorrect, bad research. Which is why we criticise it. And why truthers denigrate our conclusions with unspecific charges, like us not "liking" Bentham. They can't argue the hard facts, and the facts are that Bentham is not credible and neither is the Jones Harrit paper. QED.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse Last edited by ElMondoHummus; 7th December 2010 at 04:19 PM.

8th December 2010, 10:54 AM	#455
16.5 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 5,000	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus They can't argue the hard facts, and the facts are that Bentham is not credible and neither is the Jones Harrit paper. QED. I assume it has been mentioned that one of Jones' "independent peer reviewers" was noted Truther crack pot David L. Griscom of the "passengers were in on it" theory. Wonder where Bentham got his name? What an overwhelming cluster **** this stupid paper has been for the truthers. They are all guilty of academic and intellectual fraud.
16.5 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 5,000	__________________ The Fallacy of Pseudo-refuting Descriptions The art of labeling an argument in a dismissive fashion being used as an argument in and of itself. Ex: Labeling facts as a conspiracy theory

8th December 2010, 11:34 AM	#456
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 150	Jones, Harrit and Farrer said that Tillotson used air atmosphrere for its tests in his paper... it's false !! Tillotson and al. have done the tests under: "ultra pure nitrogen" Why? Because their samples contained organic material. In the paper they give 10 % of mass for these impurities (epoxyde, solvent). So, they used logically "ultra pure nitrogen"...
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 150	Last edited by moorea34; 8th December 2010 at 11:36 AM.

8th December 2010, 11:41 AM	#457
excaza Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Boston Posts: 3,632	cool
	__________________

8th December 2010, 12:09 PM	#458
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by moorea34 Jones, Harrit and Farrer said that Tillotson used air atmosphrere for its tests in his paper... it's false !! Tillotson and al. have done the tests under: "ultra pure nitrogen" Why? Because their samples contained organic material. In the paper they give 10 % of mass for these impurities (epoxyde, solvent). So, they used logically "ultra pure nitrogen"... Do you have a source for this? The paper in J. Non-Crystalline Solids (2001) didn't specify. However, I never did contact Dr. Tillotson directly.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

8th December 2010, 12:37 PM	#459
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Yeah. I just went through the paper too. I don't see it either. There are references to nitrogen adsorpsion/desorpsion, but I thought that was in reference to the nitrogen in the sol gel "skeleton" (Tillotson's word) itself. I'd be happy to be told where to find that info, though. I, too, would like to see a source.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

8th December 2010, 01:25 PM	#460
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 150	It is not in the paper... Originally Posted by R.Mackey Do you have a source for this? The paper in J. Non-Crystalline Solids (2001) didn't specify. However, I never did contact Dr. Tillotson directly. You should
moorea34 Thinker Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 150	Last edited by moorea34; 8th December 2010 at 01:26 PM.

10th December 2011, 05:16 AM	#461
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Mark Basile's analysis of his own dust sample can be seen in this video, of which I provide a summary now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc#! According to the presentation, between 30:00 and 31:26 minutes, he received a bag with "a few table-spoons" of dust collected by Janette MacKinlay in January 2008. Janette MacKinlay is one of the four contributors of dust samples to Harrit e.al.. The dust had been collected from "her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building. The building was closed for entry for about a week. As soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment, she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art piece" (Bentham paper, page 9). Basile isolated various dust particles from the sample, using a magnet and a petri dish, among them “iron based microsperes, Red/gray chips, Red chips, Rust, Wire”, also “Silicate or glassy spheres”. (screenshot taken at 32:07) One particular red/gray flake, designated “#13”, was photographed through a microscope (at 39:00), and analysed using XEDS and then heated till ignition, and the burning recorded on video through a microspcope. Here is the XEDS data, shown at 39:30 in the video: This is how he describes the heating (40:17): I am not showing the burn video sequence here. I don't think screenshots do it justice. It's at 41:42 - 41:59 in the video. The XEDS graph resembles closely Fig. 7c in Harrit e.al., albeit with relatively less Fe or more Al and Si. While we have doubts about the precision of the Weight % listed in the table, we note that the weight proportion of Si : Al, 1.71% : 1.68%, translates to molar proportions of 98 : 100, in other words, according to Basile's calculation, there are only 2% fewer Si atoms in the red material than Al atoms. We further note that about 73% carbon represents > 90% organic matrix. 2.63% Fe could represent 3.76% Fe₂O₃, binding 1.13% O. 1.71% Si could represent 7,86% aluminium silicate (kaolinite, Al₂Si₂O₅(OH)₄), binding 4.38% O. All other elements together are 1.8%. If all the Al were elemental, and in a perfectly stoichiometric mix with Fe₂O₃ to form thermite, then 1.68% Al would require 3.48% Fe – Basile only found 2.63% Fe. Since Fe is 52.28% by weight of perfectly stoichiometric thermite, the red layer could at most contain 5.03% thermite. With ideal thermite having a theoretical maximum energy density of 3.9 kJ/g (see Harrit e.al., page 27), the red layer as a whole could at most inherit 5.03% of that, or about 196 J/g, from Fe-Al thermite. Most organic compounds have energy densities anywhere between 15 and 40 kJ/g. Assuming a reasonable average value of 20 kJ/g, and 90% organic matrix, the latter would add 18,000 J/g of energy density to the red material, or more than 90 times as much as the supposed thermite under the most ideal of circumstances.
	Last edited by Oystein; 10th December 2011 at 05:21 AM. Reason: I exchanged img at 39:30, had the wrong one up initially

10th December 2011, 06:25 AM	#462
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by moorea34 Jones, Harrit and Farrer said that Tillotson used air atmosphrere for its tests in his paper... it's false !! Tillotson and al. have done the tests under: "ultra pure nitrogen" Why? Because their samples contained organic material. In the paper they give 10 % of mass for these impurities (epoxyde, solvent). So, they used logically "ultra pure nitrogen"... I had this question presented to Dr. Harrit and he clearly stated he contacted Tillotson about this point and was told that the DSC testing was done in an open air environment. His statement can be found on YouTube during the Q&A at the end of his presentation at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto. If you have contradictory evidence, we need something more than just your say so to make it believable. MM
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

10th December 2011, 06:28 AM	#463
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Originally Posted by Oystein One particular red/gray flake, designated “#13”, Wow! This is the first time I have seen this chip photographed from the underside."(Grey.) THis shot proves that the grey layer is not part of a thermite device as described in any twoofer spew of blather. The grey layer is a bit of the steel element to which the red substance (It's actually paint.) was applied. Look at the surface textrue of the grey layer. Compare it to a polished and etched iron meteorite. We have identified the substance forming the grey layer.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

10th December 2011, 07:18 AM	#466
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by Miragememories I had this question presented to Dr. Harrit and he clearly stated he contacted Tillotson about this point and was told that the DSC testing was done in an open air environment. His statement can be found on YouTube during the Q&A at the end of his presentation at the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto. If you have contradictory evidence, we need something more than just your say so to make it believable. MM Said the man who just made a claim about a Youtube video without linking to it.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

10th December 2011, 08:09 AM	#467
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,525	Originally Posted by 000063 Said the man who just made a claim about a Youtube video without linking to it. Do you really want to see another link to the Toronto show.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

10th December 2011, 09:49 AM	#468
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	No, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

10th December 2011, 11:29 AM	#469
Mudcat Man of a Thousand Memes Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 3,766	Originally Posted by cmatrix 1) Linear Thermite Cutting Apparatus; US Patent 6183569, Linear Thermite Cutting Apparatus; US Patent Application No. 2006/0266204. Could have been used to cut resisting core and perimeter columns which would have stopped a fire-initiated gravity-driven collapse. Highlight mine. Just because it could have been done (and no, it could not have) doesn't mean that it was. Where is the evidence that they were used or even existed? Originally Posted by cmatrix 2) The same way the Manhattan Project was kept secret for so long: need to know, compartmentalization, sworn to secrecy etc. Difference here being that the Manhattan Project wasn't illegal. A 9/11 conspiracy, such as the one you and truthers suggest happened, would almost certainly would be. If it had been a conspiracy someone would have talked by now.
	__________________ The major problem with Ocham's Razor is that while the simplest answer may be the best answer that doesn't make it the only answer or the right one. Kopji: A perfect utopia where everyone follows the rules is more like a hell than a heaven.

10th December 2011, 01:21 PM	#470
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by leftysergeant Wow! This is the first time I have seen this chip photographed from the underside."(Grey.) THis shot proves that the grey layer is not part of a thermite device as described in any twoofer spew of blather. The grey layer is a bit of the steel element to which the red substance (It's actually paint.) was applied. Look at the surface textrue of the grey layer. Compare it to a polished and etched iron meteorite. We have identified the substance forming the grey layer. In that image, the grey surface on the left, with the parallel horizontal stripes, does not belong to the chip. I think I remember it's a steel blade that Basile used to sort the dust or cut the chips.

10th December 2011, 01:44 PM	#471
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by 000063 Said the man who just made a claim about a Youtube video without linking to it. Why, is it too difficult to find even though I gave you enough info that even a 5-year old old could google it? MM
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

10th December 2011, 01:46 PM	#472
000063 Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Not America. Posts: 4,739	Originally Posted by Miragememories Why, is it too difficult to find even though I gave you enough info that even a 5-year old old could google it? MM You decried someone for not presenting information, right after you failed to present it yourself. Like you said, a five year old could Google it. So why haven't you, and shown it to us?
	__________________ No, I'd like you to answer the question in two, simple, coherent sentences. ... That's how you present credible arguments in written form. -ergo, on me giving him a 2 digit number I can think of two reasons why bedunkers are often so loathe to explain their theories using plain, concise language--words even. - ergo

10th December 2011, 05:12 PM	#473
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Originally Posted by Miragememories Why, is it too difficult to find even though I gave you enough info that even a 5-year old old could google it? MM So you won't because...?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660

11th December 2011, 04:51 AM	#474
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,614	Originally Posted by Oystein In that image, the grey surface on the left, with the parallel horizontal stripes, does not belong to the chip. I think I remember it's a steel blade that Basile used to sort the dust or cut the chips. I was referring to the area to the right of the screen. We can clearly see when we blow it up the the grey substance displays a cubical fracture pattern, as though it were composed of tightly-packed rectangular crystals. That is slightly oxidized steel. To the left of that, that round object that I circled looks like on of the much-ought-after steel microspheres.There also appear to be more-or-less spherical globs of iron at the top right of the red chip. I see no way that the grey material is in any way a part of a thermitic device.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

11th December 2011, 05:13 AM	#475
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,929	Originally Posted by leftysergeant I was referring to the area to the right of the screen. We can clearly see when we blow it up the the grey substance displays a cubical fracture pattern, as though it were composed of tightly-packed rectangular crystals. That is slightly oxidized steel. To the left of that, that round object that I circled looks like on of the much-ought-after steel microspheres.There also appear to be more-or-less spherical globs of iron at the top right of the red chip. I see no way that the grey material is in any way a part of a thermitic device. I don't think anyone, including Harrit e.al., has ever proposed anything about anything for the gray matter that somehow plays into any thermite theory. Harrit's data shows it's iron oxide, with possibly a tiny blip at 5.9keV for manganese in Fig. 6 a, b and d, which would point to regular A36 steel. So it this fits the LaClede theory well, since the majority of the steel LaClede used for the floor joists was a variety of A36 that contained a wee bit above 1% of manganese. Harrit and other truthes speculate that their "thermite" may have been "painted" or "sprayed" on strcutural steel, so really you are blowing everyone's horn. As for the tiny specks that you circle - I think they are too small to be identified or properly described. Just a small number of pixels, and gone through several steps of deletrious image manipulation - not least of which are the steps - Someone takes original photo, with all its limitations of focus and resolution - Probably some "enhancing" - Basile crops and resizes it to put into presentation - Someone copies it into lower res video - possible further video compression - I make a screenshot - and resize again These specks look roundish, but you can't know if they are truly spheres or just small without pointed edges.

11th December 2011, 08:58 AM	#476
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,783	Originally Posted by leftysergeant "I was referring to the area to the right of the screen. We can clearly see when we blow it up the the grey substance displays a cubical fracture pattern, as though it were composed of tightly-packed rectangular crystals. That is slightly oxidized steel. To the left of that, that round object that I circled looks like on of the much-ought-after steel microspheres.There also appear to be more-or-less spherical globs of iron at the top right of the red chip. I see no way that the grey material is in any way a part of a thermitic device." Originally Posted by Oystein "I don't think anyone, including Harrit e.al., has ever proposed anything about anything for the gray matter that somehow plays into any thermite theory. Harrit's data shows it's iron oxide, with possibly a tiny blip at 5.9keV for manganese in Fig. 6 a, b and d, which would point to regular A36 steel. So it this fits the LaClede theory well, since the majority of the steel LaClede used for the floor joists was a variety of A36 that contained a wee bit above 1% of manganese. Harrit and other truthes speculate that their "thermite" may have been "painted" or "sprayed" on strcutural steel, so really you are blowing everyone's horn..." Well rather than listen to what you think you recall Oystein, why not consult the source directly? From the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe; "The four spectra in Fig. (6) indicate that the gray layers are consistently characterized by high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon." "In addition, the gray-layer material demands further study. What is its purpose? Sometimes the gray material appears in multiple layers." Fig. (31). Photomicrograph of a red/gray chip found in sample 3, showing multiple layers and an unusual light-gray layer between the red layers. "...The gray layer in contact with the red layer has the XEDS spectrum shown in Fig.(33) in which iron is not seen, while the outer gray material had an XEDS spectrum just like those displayed in Fig. (6). Thus, the middle-layer gray material contains carbon and oxygen and presumably also contains hydrogen, too light to be seen using this method. Since the gray inner layer appears between two other layers, it may be a type of adhesive, binding a red porous thermitic material to another, iron-rich material." Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones "Dr. Steven Jones: There are a lot of questions that came up during the paper that have been left unanswered, or unanswered, but need to be answered. Just an example; what is the gray layer? What is the purpose of the gray layer? We know it has a lot of iron, we know it has a lot of oxygen. We found that there is a hematite phase [reddish-black mineral consisting of ferric oxide] but there are other phases present in that gray layer and we don't quite know what that gray layer is and how it is adhered to the red layer. Certainly further study needs to be done. Occasionally we would find an intermediate layer between the red layer and the gray layer which was rich in carbon. Perhaps a polymer type layer. But, again, we need to go further with that study to determine what those things are." I see no pointed reference to manganese which suggests that "possibly tiny blip for manganese" you are weighing heavily on to bolster your Laclede primer paint hypothesis, is indeed nothing more than background noise. You will milk the weakest evidence to support your failed primer paint hypothesis though. MM
	__________________ "No one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe." -Mark Roberts, 11/5/2007 [The bad air was amazingly confined to the Ground Zero site? "Who knew"] "I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." -Christie Todd Whitman, EPA Press Release, 9/18/2001

11th December 2011, 09:03 AM	#477
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,525	Quote: Originally Posted by Dr. Steven Jones "Dr. Steven Jones: There are a lot of questions that came up during the paper that have been left unanswered, or unanswered, but need to be answered. Just an example; what is the gray layer? What is the purpose of the gray layer? We know it has a lot of iron, we know it has a lot of oxygen. We found that there is a hematite phase [reddish-black mineral consisting of ferric oxide] but there are other phases present in that gray layer and we don't quite know what that gray layer is and how it is adhered to the red layer. Certainly further study needs to be done. Occasionally we would find an intermediate layer between the red layer and the gray layer which was rich in carbon. Perhaps a polymer type layer. But, again, we need to go further with that study to determine what those things are." Holy crap!!!!!!!! The steel was rusting and was contaminated with organic compounds. Never see that happen in nature. (he's actually saying, he has no idea how paint would look on rusted metal)
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley Last edited by DGM; 11th December 2011 at 09:12 AM.