Merged Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper

[Redford]

A line or two to list the names of the paint(s) (exact) they allegedly tested WOULD NOT be much to add to a paper, whether it be 2 or 22 pages long. To say otherwise is a HORRIBLY FLIMSY cop out...sorry.

The papers says several paints were tested for ignition, several for MEK solvant and several for resistance. Now you can yell and write in caps but you didn't say what could be actually learned from that list. And if that's no more than what I said, such a list is uninformative and go below the radar. 25 pages is already very long for a publication. Most of the articles just take way more shortcuts.

That said, I am sure that list exist. If you're interested (what for, that I don't know...) it's certainly possible to ask.

You just said earlier that "papers"

Sorry for my english. By that I meant the Harrit et al article.

Here it is in a nutshell. The vast majority of the world, in particular the science community, DO NOT believe thermite was used, they believe the collapses were the result of the impacts, the fires, and the removal of fireproofing. Therefore, Jones et al are the ones with the BURDEN OF PROOF to show otherwise.

That's your belief. If I look the facts I see lots of scientists/expert openly in the truth movement (and fact wise, I've got no rational reason to consider they're silly, as I exclude the circular logic of "they're truther so they're silly" that I can see is pretty popular here).

Now maybe there's a lot of scientists in the debunker movement, maybe even more but as long as they don't start their own association we can't seriously count them. In the meantime that's hundreds to tens balance. If any conclusion could be taken from by a new comer it's that the scientific community is rather convinced by truther. I am sure you're jumping on your seat but fact is that every new poll show progressions of truther and if you hate that, a reality check will help you to fight it efficiently. De nada =)

 

[twinstead]

Redford how do YOU explain why the vast majority of the world's scientific community, after so many years, still believes that the collapses were the result of the impacts, the fires, and the removal of fireproofing?

You don't see an organization of "scientists for a round Earth", do you? Do you agree that the majority of scientists believe the earth isn't flat regardless of that?

 

[240-185]

see lots of scientists/expert openly in the truth movement

"lots"?
Judy Wood is a Ph. D. Does that make she's right about Star Wars Beams?
FHC aka henryco? A man who thinks that therm*te + thermobaric weapons destroyed the towers?
Jones? Whose credibility is totally botched since he "proved" the existence of Jesus in the US or the cold fusion?
Anyone else?

 

[Klimax]

One quick question regarding XEDS.
Are spikes depending on molecule in which they are bound? I have seen two Fe spikes,could they be used to determine whether Fe is (e.g.) three or five oxidation number?

Would that be then usefull in determining what was present in tested chips?

 

[Lenbrazil]

.

Kaolin is in concrete so it wouldn't surprise me if people found that in the dust just as USGS do. The difference is that I'm saying it's contained within a sample and not the bulk sample itself. I hope that makes sense.

I think it [Kaolin] was an ingredient in paint in samples a,b,c,d. That paint is adhered to an Iron Oxide. The most likely scenario is that this oxide is from steel.

I've just looked at that video for the first time and it's awful! Aaaaarggghhh. I want to scream. Why are they not using a proper laboratory set up when taking that video?

[...]

We've been using video cameras on such mounts to capture pictures for, well more than since I can remember and that was early 90's. Every lab has them, often we switch cameras with scopes. Why didn't they produce a proper resolution video with one of those? Amateurs!

1) What video are you talking about?

2) Funny that you find thei microscope skills deficient the guy Jones said should have been the lead author is a PhDed SEM lab manager. Supposedly BYU's lab is especialy well equiped. He claims that his areas of specialty include "Electron Microscopy, electron diffraction, orientation imaging microscopy"

 

[T.A.M.]

Redford:

ok,

1. They did not test the resistivity of many paints. They tested the resistivity of "the red material (with very little gray adhering to one side)", for which they got a "ROUGH" value, and compared this with TABULATED values they found for "paints".

From page 27 of the paper in question:

We measured the resistivity of the red material (with very
little gray adhering to one side) using a Fluke 8842A multimeter
in order to compare with ordinary paints, using the
formula:
Specific resistivity = RA / L
where R = resistance (ohms); A = cross-sectional area (m2); L
= thickness (m).
Given the small size of the red chip, about 0.5 mm x 0.5
mm, we used two probes and obtained a rough value of approximately
10 ohm-m. This is several orders of magnitude
less than paint coatings we found tabulated which are typically
over 1010 ohm-m [31].

2. The solvent testing was done with MEK on the red chips, and "paint samples". The red chip samples SWELLED, whereas the paint samples (type and sample number not specified) partly dissolved.

Another test, described above, involved subjection of red
chips to methyl ethyl ketone solvent for tens of hours, with
agitation. The red material did swell but did not dissolve, and
a hard silicon-rich matrix remained after this procedure. On
the other hand, paint samples in the same exposure to MEK
solvent became limp and showed significant dissolution, as
expected since MEK is a paint solvent.

To me this sounds like varying degrees of the same reaction. Perhaps you can tell me how the two differ in this regard.

-----
So this is all that is mentioned under the section "7. Could the Red Chip Material be Ordinary Paint". I see no mention of varied paint types being TESTED. I see one reference to looking at TABULATED values from several paints, and the solvent testing of paint samples (is this multiple samples of the same paint, or single samples from multiple paints?)

So is there a section of the paper that I over looked where they state that the TESTED multiple paint types, or were you assuming the above section I quoted was indicating multiple PAINT TYPES?

As to whether it matters what type of paints they tested, etc... it is FUNDAMENTALLY important, and for you to say it is not, is disingenous at best. Any real scientist would instantly recognize the importance of making CRYSTAL CLEAR, the exacts of his controls and providing EXACT details on how other compounds (and their exacts) were eliminated.

This was not done, to any degree beyond a feeble, and I would say purposely flimsy, attempt.

TAM

 

[Redford]

Redford how do YOU explain why the vast majority of the world's scientific community, after so many years

As stated I don't know how it is for real, but I can tell how it looks like. You're making an assumption here backed with no name list and no quotes. I am just saying "this is not very convincing from an external POV". Now if you disagree with that, fine by me ! It's not really my problem, is it ?


To T.A.M.

1. Yes but... you're playing with word, aren't you ?

2.

To me this sounds like varying degrees of the same reaction. Perhaps you can tell me how the two differ in this regard.

Nope, I wonder too. All I can do is to suppose the significant dissolution they're describing really is one. Which I do because I don't see the point of analysing the paper without postulating it's honnest. Else you can detect potential landmines every two words.

So to sum up :
- you skipped the flame test (several paints being mentioned)
- I assume several paints, and not sample of the same paint (wouldn't make any sense, would it) for solvant
- reference to known test of several paints for resistance

No we can split hairs in four (french for overtalking small matter) but I suggest we don't go further unless you can at least tell me specifically of what use would be such a list. I am sorry but no article I've read the last two weeks is even half as detailed as this one on this sort of details, and this because scientist reading articles prefers to have something synthetical they can read reasonably quick and then ask details if needed.

So once more if you want to know, ask (in the relevant place, i.e. most likely not here ). OTOH if your real intention is to flame the paper and everyone that doesn't flame it by principle, I acknowledge you're at the right place, with the right tone

 

[Dog Town]

Here's an interesting e-mail to said authors, by DR.Frank G. on Greg U's forum.
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-105.html

Dear All,

First off, if I have offended anyone it certainly was not my intention and I think the record shows that I have generally refrained from snide remarks, unlike some members of your group. You have to recognize that in this current round of e-mail exchanges I am one (lone) voice against nine, and I am at a severe disadvantage because I have no WTC dust samples and I have not seen all of your data. If I appear to misunderstand a point or two in your paper you should perhaps accept that parts of the paper are confusing, light on important details, or poorly written.....

Nevertheless, I do not accept that I have ever posted "nonsense" but, on the contrary, I have to say that I feel some of your views and the "science" you use to back up your claims with regard to what happened to the Twin Towers are in my opinion (and the opinion of many critics around the world) best described as "nonsense". Interestingly, you all dodge the question: How was your (alleged) nanothermite actually used? And when I start to ponder this question I soon find myself thinking that the whole idea is indeed nonsense. I have, as a mental exercise, even proposed my own conspiracy theory - that the WTC thermal insulation was laced with ammonium perchlorate (AP) - and have provided as much or more evidence for this hypothesis as your team has for nanothermite. Simply put, an AP theory makes more sense than your mysterious nanothermite ignitors which make no sense at all! And let's not forget that not so long ago Steven Jones was telling the world that THERMATE was used to bring down the Towers!

I would say that if you guys really believe you have "hit the mother lode" with nanothermite, you are approaching the dissemination of this discovery the wrong way. You should (probably with the help of lawyers) be writing to the FBI, Homeland Security, NIST, FEMA and to other law enforcement/ disaster mitigation agencies and inform them of your discovery. You shold be writing to the managers and scientists at National Labs such as LLNL, NASA, Los Alamos, etc. You should be writing to politicians, activists and the media. An article in an obscure Chemical Physics Journal is not going to influence anyone bacause most academics are ivory-towered, blinkered specialists who are indifferent to anything but their own careers and ambitions.

Finally, debating nanothermite on the internet is really the biggest waste of time of all. As we have seen, it's an exercise in BS and bombast for some and a source of entertainment for many others; this is really too bad, but as Shakespeare so aptly said about life: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

Frank, I know you hated it here, but you're all right!

 

[metamars]

From the armchair physics department...

How about hitting one with a hammer, and see if it ignites?

Of course, if it's super duper thermite, it may weld your hammer to what you rest the sample on.

According to this page a 2 lb hammer swung at 20 feet per second, which drives a nail 1/2 inch into hard wood, would exert 521 lbs of pressure.

A typical nail head is much smaller than 1/10 of a square inch. So, maximum pressure of a hammer blow on a nail head will exceed 5,210 lb/in^2, or 35.9 MPa

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite. (Recall that the yields of Al Oxide are in the MPa range. I don't remember exactly how many MPa, and am too lazy/tired to look it up. However, if it's not quite enough to ignite the chip, then I fully expect a sledge hammer to do the job.).

Of course, you should use a glue that doesn't have kaolinite. If it doesn't ignite, you can send the remains to Sunstealer. We wouldn't want him to be fooled by glue-kaolinite.

 

[R.Mackey]

A typical nail head is much smaller than 1/10 of a square inch. So, maximum pressure of a hammer blow on a nail head will exceed 5,210 lb/in^2, or 35.9 MPa

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite. (Recall that the yields of Al Oxide are in the MPa range. I don't remember exactly how many MPa, and am too lazy/tired to look it up. However, if it's not quite enough to ignite the chip, then I fully expect a sledge hammer to do the job.).

I'll probably get beat to the answer, but this kind of analysis is useless in this context.

Metal powder incendiaries are going to be extremely shock-insensitive. Their reaction is one with a high activation energy. A smaller-grain powder will be more sensitive, but only compared to coarser grained constructions tha will be even less sensitive because the reactants aren't even in contact.

Thermite in general is not shock-sensitive at all. Tillotson, in his paper -- one of the few that actually deals with nanothermite -- describes shock insensitivity as a feature. Other papers describe the reaction rate as being purely thermal in nature, rather than propagated through shock as in most ordinary high explosives. The low energy content of any thermite is also a clue that, since you are a low explosive, you need heating, not shock.

If the stuff is going to go off with a hammer blow, the energy to crack an oxide layer is not the correct activation energy. I can mix reagent-grade unoxidized aluminum powder and iron oxide at room temperature, and nothing will happen. Furthermore, the average pressure or impulse delivered by the hammer is not the right one to apply. At very small scales, physical pressure is dominated by geometry of nearby particles impinging on the one in question, and other mechanisms like abrasion will be more relevant.

Rather than look at it this way, if a hammer reliably ignited the stuff, it would probably be in the form of strain energy causing heating. You smack it with the hammer, it deforms, in doing so it captures mechanical energy as thermal energy, and if this reaches the activation temperature somewhere in the mixture you would get a reaction. We have no idea of the stuff's stress-strain characteristics, so we can't estimate this. Experiment would be the correct approach.

Having said that, if you set up a wedge, a highly granular and unyielding buffer that "pinched" the compount, I'm sure you could get it to ignite with physical pressure. Think of the "anvil" in a bullet primer. But, of course, this greatly complicates your approach, and I reject that you need or even want the stuff to be shock-sensitive to begin with.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Consequently, I predict that if you start a nail into hard wood, then glue one of the chips onto the head of a nail, then finally whack it once again, hard, if it's nano-thermite, it will ignite.

If that were true, then nano-thermite would be a strange choice for an application where it was required to experience a sudden and intense impact without igniting.

Dave

 

[twinstead]

As stated I don't know how it is for real, but I can tell how it looks like. You're making an assumption here backed with no name list and no quotes. I am just saying "this is not very convincing from an external POV". Now if you disagree with that, fine by me ! It's not really my problem, is it ?

There is no scientific group who declares the world is round, but you must assume the vast majority of scientists from around the world DO indeed believe it is round, right?

So. In my opinion you can't hide behind the fact it's not convincing to YOU. With all due respect that is irrelevant. I suppose I could ask this question: If the "official story" of 911 is so unbelievable, then why are so many scientists from around the world keeping their mouths shut about it? You'd think they would be coming out of the woodwork to

 

[T.A.M.]

As stated I don't know how it is for real, but I can tell how it looks like. You're making an assumption here backed with no name list and no quotes. I am just saying "this is not very convincing from an external POV". Now if you disagree with that, fine by me ! It's not really my problem, is it ?


To T.A.M.

1. Yes but... you're playing with word, aren't you ?

2.

Nope, I wonder too. All I can do is to suppose the significant dissolution they're describing really is one. Which I do because I don't see the point of analysing the paper without postulating it's honnest. Else you can detect potential landmines every two words.

So to sum up :
- you skipped the flame test (several paints being mentioned)
- I assume several paints, and not sample of the same paint (wouldn't make any sense, would it) for solvant
- reference to known test of several paints for resistance

No we can split hairs in four (french for overtalking small matter) but I suggest we don't go further unless you can at least tell me specifically of what use would be such a list. I am sorry but no article I've read the last two weeks is even half as detailed as this one on this sort of details, and this because scientist reading articles prefers to have something synthetical they can read reasonably quick and then ask details if needed.

So once more if you want to know, ask (in the relevant place, i.e. most likely not here ). OTOH if your real intention is to flame the paper and everyone that doesn't flame it by principle, I acknowledge you're at the right place, with the right tone

I do not call it splitting hairs, I call it a lack of critical detail on an area that is critical to a scientific investigation with a hypothesis that would fly in the face of conventional understanding.

If you are going to provide a hypothesis that opposes the accepted, mainstream theory on something then your evidence, and hence your analysis must be thorough and detailed, in particular, you must RULE OUT that your findings are not better explained by something more readily available and understandable (that the chips are paint + corrosion). Jones et al failed miserably at this both in terms of what they told us they tested, and how they tested it. They also failed to provide details of the composition of their comparative testing samples.

As well, anyone will tell you, that a known chain of custody is paramount to having your results taken seriously. Jones et al failed at this also.

The only thing their paper succeeds at, is proving how much confirmation bias they all have towards the subject. At that, they passed with flying colors.

That is how I see it, and it is how most people of this site see it. I think Dr. Greening (though I would not dare speak for him) likely sees it somewhat similar.

I do not see a point to discussing this further. I have provided you with my arguments. You have not refuted them, so much as simply seen it a different way, so let us leave it at that...

TAM

 

[tfk]

Redford

<snip>
That's your belief. If I look the facts I see lots of scientists/expert openly in the truth movement (and fact wise, I've got no rational reason to consider they're silly, as I exclude the circular logic of "they're truther so they're silly" that I can see is pretty popular here).

There are not "lots of scientists / experts ... in the truth movement". There are precious (in the sense of "misbehaving toddlers") few.

More importantly, almost every single one of the truther experts is operating outside of their fields of expertise. This drops you list of ae911t experts to about 140. And your list of experts publishing results in their field of expertise perilously close to zero.
__

In each specific event, there are a small number of fields of expertise.

Hijacking the planes: hijacking experts, communications experts, ATC experts.

Flying the planes: pilots, aerodynamic engineers.

Impact of the plane into the towers: Mechanical engineers specializing in impact & collision, structural engineers, FEA modelers, videogrammetry experts.

Collapse of the towers: Mechanical engineers, Structural engineers, Fire engineers, FEA modelers, construction engineers, video analysis experts, (and to address the issue of possible demolition) demolition engineers.

The overall "Project manager" who would direct such an investigation, tapping into all these fields as necessary, would be an expert in forensic investigations of large structure failures.

This is one of the single most glaring differences between the NIST study and any truther comments. The NIST study sought out world class experts in each of these fields. LOOK at the list of experts that put together their report.

Now look at the list of your experts, taken I suppose from ae911t and from the truther spokespeople.

The VAST number of theories that have been advanced have been by complete amateurs, with zero engineering experience.

Now look at ae911T. The vast majority of these folks have zero expertise in any of the fields associated with the collapse of large structures. And yet, it is almost uniform that they claim that they knew it was a demolition "as soon as they saw it on 9/11". This is the mark of an absolute amateur. Professionals wait to see what the evidence tells them.

Note that architects do NOT have the qualifications to analyze a collapse either. They go to structural engineers to figure out whether or not their designs will stand.

Now, of the structural and mechanical engineers that are in ae911t, few of them (AFAIK) have produced papers proving their points. And the few experts outside of ae911t that have done so have not submitted their papers to peer review. This eliminates their value to the general public, who are not equipped to wade thru the arguments.

The few real experts that you have that have spoken within their fields (Judy Wood, for example) have produced embarrassingly flawed work.

So, what you really have is a tiny group (perhaps 15?) of amateurs, producing un-reviewed nonsense outside of their fields of expertise. Plus an even smaller group of experts (perhaps 5?) producing embarrassing nonsense within their field of expertise. And none of it peer reviewed.

In other words, the technical brain trust of the truth movement has produced nothing in 7+ years.

Now maybe there's a lot of scientists in the debunker movement, maybe even more but as long as they don't start their own association we can't seriously count them. In the meantime that's hundreds to tens balance. If any conclusion could be taken from by a new comer it's that the scientific community is rather convinced by truther.

As others have pointed out, there were no groups of scientists or engineers who joined committees "approving" the Warren Commission report, the Challenger or Columbia shuttle investigations, the Hyatt Regency disaster, or the OKC bombing investigation either. Engineers have learned to acknowledge the competence and depth of knowledge of experts working in their respective fields.

Here is a website for professional civil engineers. http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/wtc.php
Show me the "debate" on the NIST commission report. Answer: there ISN'T one.

Here is a page that lists the groups of engineers & architects in the US. http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Adding it up, there are about "123,000 members of ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA (American Institute of Architects) ... 120,000 members of ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers) ... 370,000 members of IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) ... 40,000 members of AIChE (American Institute of Chemical Engineers) ... 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report." For every engineer that is a member of each of those societies, there are, of course, several engineers who are not.

So, a "most favorable" number for your contention is about 140 (total of structural, civil & mechanical engineers in ae911t) out of at least a million (counting just structural, civil & mechanical engineers in the US alone).

I would also be happy to provide you with the names of about 400 engineers who explicitly support the NIST findings by virtue of their journal-published works based upon those findings. Before I do, tho, I want to know what concession that you will make regarding this issue.

I've been a working Project Engineer (mechanical) for 34 years. I know personally perhaps 200+ engineers and 100+ scientists that I've met in that time. I do not know of ONE that believes the "truther woo".

I am certain that there are many "technical people" that do, however. Because I've also known idiosyncratic, iconoclastic "characters" at every company for whom I've worked who said that they believed that the US did NOT fly to the moon. Whether they truly believed it or not, I cannot say. But saying that they did not believe it was an integral part of their chosen, colorful persona.

Gage is at AIA right now. He will come away with a bunch of signatures. (He claimed "about 50" as of yesterday.) His presence there is known to everyone. It's probably the most "interesting", perhaps newsworthy (?) thing there. I suggest that, when he posts his new converts on his website, we take the number of REAL architects out of the total attendance of REAL architects as a first order approximation. Not of the number who believe in a controlled demo, but who believe, as he phrases it, that a new investigation is needed.

Last point. As I mentioned, architects are informed about buildings, but not experts on why they stand or fall. This thesis is PROVEN by the real architect, Gage, and his cardboard boxes. But I can assure you that neither Gage nor Jones will EVER bring their dog & pony show before an audience of structural or mechanical engineers. They would get laughed off of the stage.

College kids are impressionable. Real engineers DELIGHT in being rude.

It's part of our "charm".

tom

 

[Redford]

T.A.M. : you did'n't said of what specifical use would be such a list. Apart from that you don't need to repeat yourself for the rest, I got it that it's what you think and it's perfectly fine.

tfk : this is going OT, isn't it ? I am sorry but I've no time for this. I won't discuss this apart to say

- that I compared NIST reporth authors CV and ae911's list and found roughly same ratio of same experts.

- Also according to your theory of "one expert is only expert in his very field", Sunstealer has no relevant things to say about the article. Well, I think otherwise.

- Last, I think the fact that you have to do a lot of reasoning to convince me the support of the scientific community to the official explanation is not only an assumption is the key issue I am trying to show you (note that it's a communication issue). It's not damn complicated to launch a website/association and start to raise some signatures for the supposedly numerous scientists ready to support "round earth". Still it's not there. As long as it's not their, it's trusting you or trusting tangible CVs and quotes. No doubt some will trust you first, but those ones probably doesn't need to be convinced in the first place.

 

[Redford]

If the "official story" of 911 is so unbelievable, then why are so many scientists from around the world keeping their mouths shut about it? You'd think they would be coming out of the woodwork to

Missed that one, sorry. Again, this is OT. I'll just say this : you make an assumption here. I do to, thus. Mine is to say that 600 building specialists putting their names on ae911 is a quite big figure according. Because for each of them you can count several others that are convinced to but don't put their names on it. Now if I consider Gage's ressources (money, time), and my own experience of convincing and audience, it looks (no matter the topic) like a pretty good ratio.

But figures is really something that anyone can twist in it's own belief (like going from 600 specialists to 15 lunatics ;-) so I have another critaeria : I count the people changing side. AFAIK it's always joining truther, not leaving them. But maybe you know cases I don't know ?

 

[metamars]

Expanded email exchange between Greening and 2 members of the Harrit team

I created a new thread with quotes from Professor Jones, Gregg Roberts and Dr. Greening (plus a couple of bonus emails of my own ) , at the911forum

The idea is to just quote emails, with any commentary to go into other threads.

 

[Redford]

That's really great! Thx a lot metamars.

 

[metamars]

That's really great! Thx a lot metamars.

You're welcome. I'll be adding to the thread as new emails come in. Dr. Greening has just sent one regarding his unaddressed points, though I've requested that he fix it up, as it has all sorts of strange characters in it. Thus, I haven't uploaded it, yet.

 

[chillzero]

OK - the last few posts were ok to let people know about the other thread. Please keep this one back on topic from here.