Chemical Engineer Mark Basile confirms Harrit nano-thermite results - Page 3

phunk · 29th October 2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

It wouldn't be too inconvenient, it would be too moronic. Since he's a competent chemist he knows it's not a thermite reaction, it's a nano-thermite reaction.

And if you knew any chemistry, you'd know a nano-thermite reaction doesn't release more energy than a normal thermite reaction. It just releases it faster.

ETA: Note to self... read the whole thread before posting something already thoroughly covered.

sheeplesnshills · 29th October 2010, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Since when do hand-waving pronouncements count as refutation? Wake me when debunkers actually publish a scientific response (paper or even a letter) to Harrit's paper.

Why would we bother? they have not published a paper in a reputable journal for anyone to reply to.
There are plenty of threads outlining the problems with the vanity press joke if you are really interested in the subject.

sheeplesnshills · 29th October 2010, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Thunder

when will the nano-thermite samples be sent to Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, CalTech, UC Berkeley, Yale, MIT, or Oxford, for independent analysis and confirmation?

there is no admissible chain of custody so any test results would be meaningless. If they find nothing but paint etc the truthers would claim the results were faked and if they find sooper nanny termites its inadmissible as evidence because Jones et al could simply have added it.

sheeplesnshills · 29th October 2010, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

It wouldn't be too inconvenient, it would be too moronic. Since he's a competent chemist he knows it's not a thermite reaction, it's a nano-thermite reaction.

LOL and what do you imagine is the difference?

sheeplesnshills · 29th October 2010, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

He already did last year:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

ROTFLOL you didn't know about this?????

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-journal.html

sheeplesnshills · 29th October 2010, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by uke2se

Point of order: The Manhattan Project wasn't a terribly well kept secret at all. In fact, it leaked like a sieve. Several of the senior research staff were Soviet spies.

nor was it a secret for all that long...........

twinstead · 29th October 2010, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

nor was it a secret for all that long...........

Yup. The secrecy came to an abrupt end on August 6, 1945

sheeplesnshills · 29th October 2010, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Dave is right. As has been demonstrated over in the Sci/Math/Med/Tech subforum, the existence of a patent is far from being a validation of the concept.

True.....most of my patents are simply alternative ways of doing something we patent to stop rivals finding a way around the one we actually use. We do not actually try to see if they really would work.

triforcharity · 29th October 2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Prove they are not peer-reviewed journals.

Bentham's "peer-review" consists of "Did the check clear?"

Google "Bentham Open Sham" and you will see what I am talking about.

JO911S is a sham journal created by truthers, so that they could claim that they had peer-reviewed publications. But yet, there are HUNDREDS of RESPECTABLE journals available that they could publish in, if they actually has something of value.

AS an asside, they would NOT publish my paper on 7WTC. Why you ask? Because I wasn't "invited". Sorry, that makes that a sham journal.

ElMondoHummus · 29th October 2010, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

True.....most of my patents are simply alternative ways of doing something we patent to stop rivals finding a way around the one we actually use. We do not actually try to see if they really would work.

PATENT SQUATTER!!!!!

Kidding... KIDDING!

leftysergeant · 29th October 2010, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

there is no admissible chain of custody so any test results would be meaningless. If they find nothing but paint etc the truthers would claim the results were faked and if they find sooper nanny termites its inadmissible as evidence because Jones et al could simply have added it.

Alternatively, somebody could obtain some paint chips known to be from WTC and have them analyzed and compared to Jones' samples.

Tulio · 29th October 2010, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Prove they are not peer-reviewed journals.

Hi, Tulio, from Spain. My english is very poor.
Apologies for this.

I can easily prove that Bentham publications are not peer reviewed. It is a well known fact.

I can not post urls, go to:

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars /

and check.

A Bentham's journal give by "approved" an article that was written by a virtual "battalion of monkeys banging on a keyboard"

ElMondoHummus · 29th October 2010, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tulio

Hi, Tulio, from Spain. My english is very poor.
Apologies for this.

I can easily prove that Bentham publications are not peer reviewed. It is a well known fact.

I can not post urls, go to:

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars /

and check.

A Bentham's journal give by "approved" an article that was written by a virtual "battalion of monkeys banging on a keyboard"

Hello Tullio. Welcome to the forum. I'll go ahead and make the link for you:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2...e-for-dollars/

Also: You are correct. If the person you're replying to had simply searched the forum for previous threads on this topic, he would have seen that Bentham Open has indeed been rightfully impugned for their badly broken and nearly nonexistent peer review, as well as their bad editorial practices. And this would've been a topic outside of 9/11 conspiracy discussions as well. But the person you replied to is biased towards denigrating legitimate investigation and extolling shoddy research; he has demonstrated this bias over and over again in order to advocate for September 11th conspiracy myths. It is good you replied to him with that information, but unfortunately I do not believe it will do any good for him. But thank you for that information.

Dave Rogers · 29th October 2010, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

JO911S is a sham journal created by truthers, so that they could claim that they had peer-reviewed publications. But yet, there are HUNDREDS of RESPECTABLE journals available that they could publish in, if they actually has something of value.

AS an asside, they would NOT publish my paper on 7WTC. Why you ask? Because I wasn't "invited". Sorry, that makes that a sham journal.

And if you think that's bad, just remember what happened to Gregory Urich, who, last time I read a post by him, still believed that 9/11 was some sort of inside job. He had an analysis of the masses of the WTC towers published in JO911S, then went on to analyse the collapse times. As many of us had already found out ourselves, his end result was that the collapse times were entirely consistent with a gravity-driven collapse with no additional structural weakening. He sent JO911S a paper on this finding, which concluded that if evidence of CD was to be found, collapse initiation was the only sensible place to look for it. JO911S replied that they were not accepting any more papers on the collapse dynamics because their case was so comprehensively proven that no further comment was necessary, and that in effect the journal was closing down. Yet, strangely, since then they found time to publish Tony Szamboti's "missing jolt" piece of mis-analysis of the collapse dynamics.

The cynical might conclude that JO911S accepts or rejects papers purely on the basis of whether they support an inside job hypothesis, and will take whatever underhand steps are necessary to reject work that draws conclusions it doesn't like. The less cynical might reach a different conclusion, but I'm damned if I know what it might be.

Dave

Tulio · 30th October 2010, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Hello Tullio. Welcome to the forum. I'll go ahead and make the link for you:

Also: You are correct. If the person you're replying to had he would have seen that Bentham Open has indeed been rightfully impugned for their badly broken and nearly nonexistent peer review, as well as their bad editorial practices. And this would've been a topic outside of 9/11 conspiracy discussions as well. But the person you replied to is biased towards denigrating legitimate investigation and extolling shoddy research; he has demonstrated this bias over and over again in order to advocate for September 11th conspiracy myths. It is good you replied to him with that information, but unfortunately I do not believe it will do any good for him. But thank you for that information.

Thanks, ElMondoHummus (I had to delete the urls to post)

I've been watching some of the links provided. Indeed, it appears that in this forum and in forums of my country, it is impossible for a truther recognize anything.

If they say that a car is white, they're right. If it is proven without appeal to that car is black, they are also right...

Well, I take this opportunity to remind members of this excellent forum that many of us read you, but barely post. And we read you from many parts of the world. It is a forum of reference respect to 9 / 11.

My admiration ... and once again, apologies for my poor English

.

triforcharity · 30th October 2010, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Tulio

Thanks, ElMondoHummus (I had to delete the urls to post)

I've been watching some of the links provided. Indeed, it appears that in this forum and in forums of my country, it is impossible for a truther recognize anything.

If they say that a car is white, they're right. If it is proven without appeal to that car is black, they are also right...

Well, I take this opportunity to remind members of this excellent forum that many of us read you, but barely post. And we read you from many parts of the world. It is a forum of reference respect to 9 / 11.

My admiration ... and once again, apologies for my poor English

.

You don't have to apologize for poor English skills. Some people who speak it daily make more screwups than yourself. No worries mate.

Welcome to the Forum!

cmatrix · 31st October 2010, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Oh. Easy.
The editor in chief of the Bentham paper that published Harrit quit immediately upon learning that this paper had been published without her knowing about it.

The editor in chief is the very person who handles the peer-review-process at a respected journal.

If the EiC does not know a paper gets published, that proves it wasn't peer reviewed.

Now all you have to prove is that the EIC wasn't lying.

cmatrix · 31st October 2010, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Oystein

I know from previous discussions that Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants.

We wonder if you do, too.

If Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants why did he say this: "Did he confirm that the samples released more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite, and that the DSC trace cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction?"

DGM · 31st October 2010, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

If Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants why did he say this: "Did he confirm that the samples released more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite, and that the DSC trace cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction?"

Explain what you think he got wrong.

grandmastershek · 31st October 2010, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Now all you have to prove is that the EIC wasn't lying.

Ahhh...yes another truther with his ever-shifting burden bulldozer.

Oystein · 31st October 2010, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

If Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants why did he say this: "Did he confirm that the samples released more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite, and that the DSC trace cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction?"

He said this, because according to Harrit e.al., in the paper that Mark Basile is said to be confirming (as per the OP), two of the samples did indeed release more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite: "approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively" (page 19), when "The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g" (page 27).

Dave concludes correctly that these DSC traces, as reported by Harrit e.al., cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction.

Dave knows that the theoretical maximum for NANO-thermite is also 3.9 kJ/g, on account of nano-thermite being chemically the same as ordinary thermite, and thus having the same enthalpy. Dave further knows that the theoretical maximum s never reached in practice - the real maximum possible for thermite is somewhat below 3.9 kJ/g, and the real maximum possible for NANO-thermite is even lower, on account of nano-sized particles of Al having a larger surface-to-volume ratio than larger particles, leading to a higher mass proportion of Al-oxides in the preparation, lowering the kJ/g. Practical values for real-world nano-thermite are reported in real scientific publications to be around 1.5 kJ/g, ruling out 3 of the 4 samples analyses by Harrit e.al.

So if Mark Basile really confirmed Harrit, he should have confirmed that the red-grey chips are proven to NOT be nano-thermitic.

Sorry for being so long-winded, I felt you needed a very detailed explanation.

Oystein · 31st October 2010, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by cmatrix

Now all you have to prove is that the EIC wasn't lying.

I'll do that the moment you prove Harrit wasn't lying.

Miragememories · 31st October 2010, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

I'll do that the moment you prove Harrit wasn't lying.

I think what you foolishly are failing to realize Oystein is that we are dealing with a substance that does not have to be thermite to be significant!

It is certainly not paint and should not exist as a naturally occurring part of the WTC dust.

If it is not a thermite derivative, then it is something equally exotic and man made.

MM

The Almond · 31st October 2010, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I think what you foolishly are failing to realize Oystein is that we are dealing with a substance that does not have to be thermite to be significant!

It is certainly not paint and should not exist as a naturally occurring part of the WTC dust.

If it is not a thermite derivative, then it is something equally exotic and man made.

MM

It's an anti-corrosion coating applied to the structure of the towers to prevent corrosion during and after the construction process. Much of New York city, if you'll recall, is quite close to the large body of salt water we on Earth call the Atlantic Ocean.

uke2se · 31st October 2010, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by The Almond

It's an anti-corrosion coating applied to the structure of the towers to prevent corrosion during and after the construction process. Much of New York city, if you'll recall, is quite close to the large body of salt water we on Earth call the Atlantic Ocean.

There we go! Exotic (well, not really, but to a twoofer definitely) and man-made. Not sinister, though, and definitely not the cause for the collapse.

Oystein · 31st October 2010, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I think what you foolishly are failing to realize Oystein is that we are dealing with a substance that does not have to be thermite to be significant!

Looking for a way out?
The paper we are talking about is titled: "Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust"
Are you now saying it maybe isn't "Active Thermitic Material" after all??

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It is certainly not paint

you can certainly pull such assertions out of any body cavity you feel comfortable with...

Originally Posted by Miragememories

and should not exist as a naturally occurring part of the WTC dust.

Because?

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If it is not a thermite derivative, then it is something equally exotic and man made.

Assuming the Conclusion.

Miragememories · 31st October 2010, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Looking for a way out?
The paper we are talking about is titled: "Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust"
Are you now saying it maybe isn't "Active Thermitic Material" after all??

you can certainly pull such assertions out of any body cavity you feel comfortable with...

Because?

Assuming the Conclusion.

I'm saying it does not matter.

If you watch the 3-part interview with physicist Jeff Farrer, you
should (big stretch), understand my point.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189669

MM

uke2se · 31st October 2010, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I'm saying it does not matter.

If you watch the 3-part interview with physicist Jeff Farrer, you
should (big stretch), understand my point.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189669

MM

How about you explain your "point" in your own words?

Captain_Swoop · 31st October 2010, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

How about you explain your "point" in your own words?

When has any 'truther' done that?

Oystein · 31st October 2010, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I'm saying it does not matter.

If you watch the 3-part interview with physicist Jeff Farrer, you
should (big stretch), understand my point.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189669

MM

Ferrer is neither Harrit nor Basile.

Please note thread title, OP, and do not move goal posts beyond the topic of this thread.

Thanks.

(Farrer, by the way, is one of the authors of the Harrit paper; if he thinks it doesn't matter if the conclusions they reached in that paper are right or wrong, something is very wrong with these people. May I remind you of the cobclusion: "...we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material...")

Miragememories · 31st October 2010, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by uke2se

How about you explain your "point" in your own words?

The material found was extremely energetic and not naturally occurring.

If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties
and of equal concern.

It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating".

MM

Miragememories · 31st October 2010, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Ferrer is neither Harrit nor Basile.

Please note thread title, OP, and do not move goal posts beyond the topic of this thread.

Thanks.

(Farrer, by the way, is one of the authors of the Harrit paper; if he thinks it doesn't matter if the conclusions they reached in that paper are right or wrong, something is very wrong with these people. May I remind you of the cobclusion: "...we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material...")

I know who he is not.

But his interview, as you point out in your bracketed comment, directly relates to this thread's topic.

He made it clear that he was open to the suggestion that it might be some other material of similar characteristic.

Again, the important point is that it was highly energetic, and should not have been so pervasive in the WTC dust.

Are you really interested in the truth or just pursuing some irrelevant game?

MM

beachnut · 31st October 2010, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The material found was extremely energetic and not naturally occurring.

If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties
and of equal concern.

It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating".

MM

lol, iron oxide and aluminum, very unnatural. An etch-a-sketch and rust, half right.

BTW, paint and coatings match what they found chemically, but why is carbon in Jones fantasy thermite? Hello?

Paper and gasoline have more energy than thermite. This is why arsonist don't use thermite to burn down buildings. You lost this one, as you support idiots who have to lie to fool other people who can't figure out 911.

Jones blames the USA for 911, and the earthquake in Haiti; Jones might be insane, what is your excuse for supporting lies?

Justin39640 · 31st October 2010, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating".

MM

The good folks down at Benjamin Moore may disagree.

Oystein · 31st October 2010, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The material found was extremely energetic

No. The highest measured value for any of the 4 samples was 7.5 kJ/g. That is moderately "energetic". If you throw together random organic materials with random anorganic materials, the average energy density will come out at roughly that value, or higher.
For example, a human body has an energy density around 10 kJ/g (that includes the 60% of inert water that we consist of!).
Fuel has around 38 kJ/g, many plastics are not far behind. Wood and paper may have 25 kJ/g, etc.
When you look at paint, you will find they often contain organic binders (resins and the like).

Mix resins with anorganic pigment, peint on, let dry, and you can expect an energy density of 8-10 kJ/g, no problem. If your sample is tampered with other stuff, expect 6-7.5 kJ/g.

You don't understand the irony of that whole thermite-nonsende: No matter how often Harrit, Jones & Co. call thermit "highly energetic", it simply isn't: Thermite's energy content is much much lower than that of pretty much all the organic materials found in buodings! Lower than hair, lower than skin flakes, lower than paper fibers, lower than paint.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

and not naturally occurring.

What do you mean by that? Steel does not occur naturally, nor does paint.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties

No. It was something that burns in air, ignites at a temperature where many organics ignite, releases as much energy as many organics... It is al very ordinary!

Originally Posted by Miragememories

and of equal concern.

No

Originally Posted by Miragememories

It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating".

Bare-assed assertion.
You will deplete your body cavities fast if you go on like this.

Oystein · 31st October 2010, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

...
Again, the important point is that it was highly energetic, and should not have been so pervasive in the WTC dust...

Again, "highly energetic" is a misrepresentation. It is more "highly energetic" than thermite. Yes. But less highly energetic than paper, plastic, wood, or human remains. It is probably about as highly energetic as paint.

I would indded expect paint and primer to be pervasive in the rubble and dust of a collapsed building.

Miragememories · 31st October 2010, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

Again, "highly energetic" is a misrepresentation. It is more "highly energetic" than thermite. Yes. But less highly energetic than paper, plastic, wood, or human remains. It is probably about as highly energetic as paint.

I would indded expect paint and primer to be pervasive in the rubble and dust of a collapsed building.

I suggest you watch that interview before you comment further.

MM

uke2se · 31st October 2010, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The material found was extremely energetic and not naturally occurring.

If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties
and of equal concern.

It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating".

MM

What evidence leads you to this definite conclusion?

uke2se · 31st October 2010, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

I suggest you watch that interview before you comment further.

MM

Instead of making another argumentum ad youtubum, how about you tell us why Jones et al call thermite "highly energetic" when it's not?

ozeco41 · 31st October 2010, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories

The material found was extremely energetic and not naturally occurring.

If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties
and of equal concern...

Correct - it is of "equal concern". That is ZERO concern.

Even if there was a ten tonne cache of thermXte on ground zero the evidence is that there was no demolition and no way that thermXte was used.

So a massive gap to cover in your claims there MM. No point arguing whether it was or was not thermXte when you cannot demonstrate a method of use which is technically viable AND secure tactics of employment so that there would be no evidence before, during or after the use.

29th October 2010, 10:12 AM	#81
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,910	Originally Posted by cmatrix It wouldn't be too inconvenient, it would be too moronic. Since he's a competent chemist he knows it's not a thermite reaction, it's a nano-thermite reaction. And if you knew any chemistry, you'd know a nano-thermite reaction doesn't release more energy than a normal thermite reaction. It just releases it faster. ETA: Note to self... read the whole thread before posting something already thoroughly covered.
phunk Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,910	Last edited by phunk; 29th October 2010 at 10:20 AM.

29th October 2010, 10:52 AM	#87
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,573	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills nor was it a secret for all that long........... Yup. The secrecy came to an abrupt end on August 6, 1945
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

29th October 2010, 02:57 PM	#89
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,167	Originally Posted by cmatrix Prove they are not peer-reviewed journals. Bentham's "peer-review" consists of "Did the check clear?" Google "Bentham Open Sham" and you will see what I am talking about. JO911S is a sham journal created by truthers, so that they could claim that they had peer-reviewed publications. But yet, there are HUNDREDS of RESPECTABLE journals available that they could publish in, if they actually has something of value. AS an asside, they would NOT publish my paper on 7WTC. Why you ask? Because I wasn't "invited". Sorry, that makes that a sham journal.
	__________________ "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

29th October 2010, 03:02 PM	#90
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills True.....most of my patents are simply alternative ways of doing something we patent to stop rivals finding a way around the one we actually use. We do not actually try to see if they really would work. PATENT SQUATTER!!!!! Kidding... KIDDING!
	__________________ 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

29th October 2010, 04:23 PM	#91
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills there is no admissible chain of custody so any test results would be meaningless. If they find nothing but paint etc the truthers would claim the results were faked and if they find sooper nanny termites its inadmissible as evidence because Jones et al could simply have added it. Alternatively, somebody could obtain some paint chips known to be from WTC and have them analyzed and compared to Jones' samples.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat.

29th October 2010, 10:29 AM	#82
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by cmatrix Since when do hand-waving pronouncements count as refutation? Wake me when debunkers actually publish a scientific response (paper or even a letter) to Harrit's paper. Why would we bother? they have not published a paper in a reputable journal for anyone to reply to. There are plenty of threads outlining the problems with the vanity press joke if you are really interested in the subject.

29th October 2010, 10:34 AM	#83
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by Thunder when will the nano-thermite samples be sent to Harvard, Princeton, Cornell, CalTech, UC Berkeley, Yale, MIT, or Oxford, for independent analysis and confirmation? there is no admissible chain of custody so any test results would be meaningless. If they find nothing but paint etc the truthers would claim the results were faked and if they find sooper nanny termites its inadmissible as evidence because Jones et al could simply have added it.

29th October 2010, 10:38 AM	#84
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by cmatrix It wouldn't be too inconvenient, it would be too moronic. Since he's a competent chemist he knows it's not a thermite reaction, it's a nano-thermite reaction. LOL and what do you imagine is the difference?

29th October 2010, 10:40 AM	#85
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by cmatrix He already did last year: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM ROTFLOL you didn't know about this????? http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-journal.html

29th October 2010, 10:46 AM	#86
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by uke2se Point of order: The Manhattan Project wasn't a terribly well kept secret at all. In fact, it leaked like a sieve. Several of the senior research staff were Soviet spies. nor was it a secret for all that long...........

29th October 2010, 10:59 AM	#88
sheeplesnshills Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 3,706	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Dave is right. As has been demonstrated over in the Sci/Math/Med/Tech subforum, the existence of a patent is far from being a validation of the concept. True.....most of my patents are simply alternative ways of doing something we patent to stop rivals finding a way around the one we actually use. We do not actually try to see if they really would work.

29th October 2010, 04:54 PM	#92
Tulio New Blood Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 8	Originally Posted by cmatrix Prove they are not peer-reviewed journals. Hi, Tulio, from Spain. My english is very poor. Apologies for this. I can easily prove that Bentham publications are not peer reviewed. It is a well known fact. I can not post urls, go to: scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars / and check. A Bentham's journal give by "approved" an article that was written by a virtual "battalion of monkeys banging on a keyboard"
Tulio New Blood Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 8

29th October 2010, 05:08 PM	#93
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,938	Originally Posted by Tulio Hi, Tulio, from Spain. My english is very poor. Apologies for this. I can easily prove that Bentham publications are not peer reviewed. It is a well known fact. I can not post urls, go to: scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars / and check. A Bentham's journal give by "approved" an article that was written by a virtual "battalion of monkeys banging on a keyboard" Hello Tullio. Welcome to the forum. I'll go ahead and make the link for you: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2...e-for-dollars/ Also: You are correct. If the person you're replying to had simply searched the forum for previous threads on this topic, he would have seen that Bentham Open has indeed been rightfully impugned for their badly broken and nearly nonexistent peer review, as well as their bad editorial practices. And this would've been a topic outside of 9/11 conspiracy discussions as well. But the person you replied to is biased towards denigrating legitimate investigation and extolling shoddy research; he has demonstrated this bias over and over again in order to advocate for September 11th conspiracy myths. It is good you replied to him with that information, but unfortunately I do not believe it will do any good for him. But thank you for that information.
	__________________ 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

29th October 2010, 10:47 PM	#94
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 triforcharity JO911S is a sham journal created by truthers, so that they could claim that they had peer-reviewed publications. But yet, there are HUNDREDS of RESPECTABLE journals available that they could publish in, if they actually has something of value. AS an asside, they would NOT publish my paper on 7WTC. Why you ask? Because I wasn't "invited". Sorry, that makes that a sham journal. And if you think that's bad, just remember what happened to Gregory Urich, who, last time I read a post by him, still believed that 9/11 was some sort of inside job. He had an analysis of the masses of the WTC towers published in JO911S, then went on to analyse the collapse times. As many of us had already found out ourselves, his end result was that the collapse times were entirely consistent with a gravity-driven collapse with no additional structural weakening. He sent JO911S a paper on this finding, which concluded that if evidence of CD was to be found, collapse initiation was the only sensible place to look for it. JO911S replied that they were not accepting any more papers on the collapse dynamics because their case was so comprehensively proven that no further comment was necessary, and that in effect the journal was closing down. Yet, strangely, since then they found time to publish Tony Szamboti's "missing jolt" piece of mis-analysis of the collapse dynamics. The cynical might conclude that JO911S accepts or rejects papers purely on the basis of whether they support an inside job hypothesis, and will take whatever underhand steps are necessary to reject work that draws conclusions it doesn't like. The less cynical might reach a different conclusion, but I'm damned if I know what it might be. 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

30th October 2010, 04:50 PM	#95
Tulio New Blood Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 8	Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Hello Tullio. Welcome to the forum. I'll go ahead and make the link for you: Also: You are correct. If the person you're replying to had he would have seen that Bentham Open has indeed been rightfully impugned for their badly broken and nearly nonexistent peer review, as well as their bad editorial practices. And this would've been a topic outside of 9/11 conspiracy discussions as well. But the person you replied to is biased towards denigrating legitimate investigation and extolling shoddy research; he has demonstrated this bias over and over again in order to advocate for September 11th conspiracy myths. It is good you replied to him with that information, but unfortunately I do not believe it will do any good for him. But thank you for that information. Thanks, ElMondoHummus (I had to delete the urls to post) I've been watching some of the links provided. Indeed, it appears that in this forum and in forums of my country, it is impossible for a truther recognize anything. If they say that a car is white, they're right. If it is proven without appeal to that car is black, they are also right... Well, I take this opportunity to remind members of this excellent forum that many of us read you, but barely post. And we read you from many parts of the world. It is a forum of reference respect to 9 / 11. My admiration ... and once again, apologies for my poor English .
Tulio New Blood Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 8

30th October 2010, 06:42 PM	#96
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,167	Originally Posted by Tulio Thanks, ElMondoHummus (I had to delete the urls to post) I've been watching some of the links provided. Indeed, it appears that in this forum and in forums of my country, it is impossible for a truther recognize anything. If they say that a car is white, they're right. If it is proven without appeal to that car is black, they are also right... Well, I take this opportunity to remind members of this excellent forum that many of us read you, but barely post. And we read you from many parts of the world. It is a forum of reference respect to 9 / 11. My admiration ... and once again, apologies for my poor English . You don't have to apologize for poor English skills. Some people who speak it daily make more screwups than yourself. No worries mate. Welcome to the Forum!
	__________________ "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

31st October 2010, 11:41 AM	#97
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by Oystein Oh. Easy. The editor in chief of the Bentham paper that published Harrit quit immediately upon learning that this paper had been published without her knowing about it. The editor in chief is the very person who handles the peer-review-process at a respected journal. If the EiC does not know a paper gets published, that proves it wasn't peer reviewed. Now all you have to prove is that the EIC wasn't lying.
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

31st October 2010, 11:44 AM	#98
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	Originally Posted by Oystein I know from previous discussions that Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants. We wonder if you do, too. If Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants why did he say this: "Did he confirm that the samples released more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite, and that the DSC trace cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction?"
cmatrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 416	__________________ JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.

31st October 2010, 11:47 AM	#99
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by cmatrix If Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants why did he say this: "Did he confirm that the samples released more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite, and that the DSC trace cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction?" Explain what you think he got wrong.
	__________________ 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

31st October 2010, 12:09 PM	#100
grandmastershek Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Where you look at a thigh, and blacken an eye... Posts: 1,324	Originally Posted by cmatrix Now all you have to prove is that the EIC wasn't lying. Ahhh...yes another truther with his ever-shifting burden bulldozer.
	__________________ 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)

31st October 2010, 02:10 PM	#101
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,752	Originally Posted by cmatrix If Dave has a firm grasp on the effects of nano-sizing reactants why did he say this: "Did he confirm that the samples released more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite, and that the DSC trace cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction?" He said this, because according to Harrit e.al., in the paper that Mark Basile is said to be confirming (as per the OP), two of the samples did indeed release more thermal energy than the theoretical maximum possible for thermite: "approximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively" (page 19), when "The theoretical maximum for thermite is 3.9 kJ/g" (page 27). Dave concludes correctly that these DSC traces, as reported by Harrit e.al., cannot therefore indicate a thermite reaction. Dave knows that the theoretical maximum for NANO-thermite is also 3.9 kJ/g, on account of nano-thermite being chemically the same as ordinary thermite, and thus having the same enthalpy. Dave further knows that the theoretical maximum s never reached in practice - the real maximum possible for thermite is somewhat below 3.9 kJ/g, and the real maximum possible for NANO-thermite is even lower, on account of nano-sized particles of Al having a larger surface-to-volume ratio than larger particles, leading to a higher mass proportion of Al-oxides in the preparation, lowering the kJ/g. Practical values for real-world nano-thermite are reported in real scientific publications to be around 1.5 kJ/g, ruling out 3 of the 4 samples analyses by Harrit e.al. So if Mark Basile really confirmed Harrit, he should have confirmed that the red-grey chips are proven to NOT be nano-thermitic. Sorry for being so long-winded, I felt you needed a very detailed explanation.

31st October 2010, 02:12 PM	#102
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,752	Originally Posted by cmatrix Now all you have to prove is that the EIC wasn't lying. I'll do that the moment you prove Harrit wasn't lying.

31st October 2010, 02:48 PM	#103
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,755	Originally Posted by Oystein I'll do that the moment you prove Harrit wasn't lying. I think what you foolishly are failing to realize Oystein is that we are dealing with a substance that does not have to be thermite to be significant! It is certainly not paint and should not exist as a naturally occurring part of the WTC dust. If it is not a thermite derivative, then it is something equally exotic and man made. 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

31st October 2010, 02:57 PM	#104
The Almond Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,015	Originally Posted by Miragememories I think what you foolishly are failing to realize Oystein is that we are dealing with a substance that does not have to be thermite to be significant! It is certainly not paint and should not exist as a naturally occurring part of the WTC dust. If it is not a thermite derivative, then it is something equally exotic and man made. MM It's an anti-corrosion coating applied to the structure of the towers to prevent corrosion during and after the construction process. Much of New York city, if you'll recall, is quite close to the large body of salt water we on Earth call the Atlantic Ocean.
	__________________ "Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member

31st October 2010, 03:00 PM	#105
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,127	Originally Posted by The Almond It's an anti-corrosion coating applied to the structure of the towers to prevent corrosion during and after the construction process. Much of New York city, if you'll recall, is quite close to the large body of salt water we on Earth call the Atlantic Ocean. There we go! Exotic (well, not really, but to a twoofer definitely) and man-made. Not sinister, though, and definitely not the cause for the collapse.
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,127

31st October 2010, 03:07 PM	#106
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,752	Originally Posted by Miragememories I think what you foolishly are failing to realize Oystein is that we are dealing with a substance that does not have to be thermite to be significant! Looking for a way out? The paper we are talking about is titled: "Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust" Are you now saying it maybe isn't "Active Thermitic Material" after all?? Originally Posted by Miragememories It is certainly not paint you can certainly pull such assertions out of any body cavity you feel comfortable with... Originally Posted by Miragememories and should not exist as a naturally occurring part of the WTC dust. Because? Originally Posted by Miragememories If it is not a thermite derivative, then it is something equally exotic and man made. Assuming the Conclusion.

31st October 2010, 03:13 PM	#107
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,755	Originally Posted by Oystein Looking for a way out? The paper we are talking about is titled: "Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust" Are you now saying it maybe isn't "Active Thermitic Material" after all?? you can certainly pull such assertions out of any body cavity you feel comfortable with... Because? Assuming the Conclusion. I'm saying it does not matter. If you watch the 3-part interview with physicist Jeff Farrer, you should (big stretch), understand my point. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189669 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

31st October 2010, 03:14 PM	#108
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,127	Originally Posted by Miragememories I'm saying it does not matter. If you watch the 3-part interview with physicist Jeff Farrer, you should (big stretch), understand my point. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189669 MM How about you explain your "point" in your own words?
uke2se Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,127

31st October 2010, 03:23 PM	#109
Captain_Swoop Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 3,917	Originally Posted by uke2se How about you explain your "point" in your own words? When has any 'truther' done that?

31st October 2010, 03:33 PM	#110
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,752	Originally Posted by Miragememories I'm saying it does not matter. If you watch the 3-part interview with physicist Jeff Farrer, you should (big stretch), understand my point. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=189669 MM Ferrer is neither Harrit nor Basile. Please note thread title, OP, and do not move goal posts beyond the topic of this thread. Thanks. (Farrer, by the way, is one of the authors of the Harrit paper; if he thinks it doesn't matter if the conclusions they reached in that paper are right or wrong, something is very wrong with these people. May I remind you of the cobclusion: "...we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material...")

31st October 2010, 03:37 PM	#111
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,755	Originally Posted by uke2se How about you explain your "point" in your own words? The material found was extremely energetic and not naturally occurring. If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties and of equal concern. It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating". 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

31st October 2010, 03:43 PM	#112
Miragememories Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 3,755	Originally Posted by Oystein Ferrer is neither Harrit nor Basile. Please note thread title, OP, and do not move goal posts beyond the topic of this thread. Thanks. (Farrer, by the way, is one of the authors of the Harrit paper; if he thinks it doesn't matter if the conclusions they reached in that paper are right or wrong, something is very wrong with these people. May I remind you of the cobclusion: "...we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material...") I know who he is not. But his interview, as you point out in your bracketed comment, directly relates to this thread's topic. He made it clear that he was open to the suggestion that it might be some other material of similar characteristic. Again, the important point is that it was highly energetic, and should not have been so pervasive in the WTC dust. Are you really interested in the truth or just pursuing some irrelevant game? 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

31st October 2010, 03:44 PM	#113
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,903	Originally Posted by Miragememories The material found was extremely energetic and not naturally occurring. If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties and of equal concern. It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating". MM lol, iron oxide and aluminum, very unnatural. An etch-a-sketch and rust, half right. BTW, paint and coatings match what they found chemically, but why is carbon in Jones fantasy thermite? Hello? Paper and gasoline have more energy than thermite. This is why arsonist don't use thermite to burn down buildings. You lost this one, as you support idiots who have to lie to fool other people who can't figure out 911. Jones blames the USA for 911, and the earthquake in Haiti; Jones might be insane, what is your excuse for supporting lies?

31st October 2010, 03:46 PM	#114
Justin39640 Illuminator Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 3,646	Originally Posted by Miragememories It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating". MM The good folks down at Benjamin Moore may disagree.
	__________________ "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

31st October 2010, 04:04 PM	#115
Oystein Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Germany Posts: 9,752	Originally Posted by Miragememories The material found was extremely energetic No. The highest measured value for any of the 4 samples was 7.5 kJ/g. That is moderately "energetic". If you throw together random organic materials with random anorganic materials, the average energy density will come out at roughly that value, or higher. For example, a human body has an energy density around 10 kJ/g (that includes the 60% of inert water that we consist of!). Fuel has around 38 kJ/g, many plastics are not far behind. Wood and paper may have 25 kJ/g, etc. When you look at paint, you will find they often contain organic binders (resins and the like). Mix resins with anorganic pigment, peint on, let dry, and you can expect an energy density of 8-10 kJ/g, no problem. If your sample is tampered with other stuff, expect 6-7.5 kJ/g. You don't understand the irony of that whole thermite-nonsende: No matter how often Harrit, Jones & Co. call thermit "highly energetic", it simply isn't: Thermite's energy content is much much lower than that of pretty much all the organic materials found in buodings! Lower than hair, lower than skin flakes, lower than paper fibers, lower than paint. Originally Posted by Miragememories and not naturally occurring. What do you mean by that? Steel does not occur naturally, nor does paint. Originally Posted by Miragememories If it was not thermitic in nature it was something with similar properties No. It was something that burns in air, ignites at a temperature where many organics ignite, releases as much energy as many organics... It is al very ordinary! Originally Posted by Miragememories and of equal concern. No Originally Posted by Miragememories It was most definitely not an "anti-corrosion coating". Bare-assed assertion. You will deplete your body cavities fast if you go on like this.