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

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

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

It might explain why it has twice the energy that thermite should have though :)
 
Last edited:
TheBigKahuna said:
I notice he ignores that fact that it was done in an oxygen atmosphere which allows atmospheric oxygen to interact with the matrix. Thermites contain their own oxidizer, doing it in an inert atmosphere would prove a thermitic compound. It's a major flaw in methodology.
Click to expand...

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

[/twoof]

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

McHrozni
 
blah blah blah truther bleating.

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

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

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

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

Try again.
 
cmatrix said:
Closed journals require you to purchase an expensive subscription in order to read the papers.
Click to expand...


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


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


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


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



...unless they're one of those bastards who know how to use a library.
 
cmatrix said:
I will itemize the specious "proofs" below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:
Click to expand...

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

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

Dave
 
cmatrix said:
Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.
Click to expand...
Jones makes up thermite scenario 4 years after 911, and now 4 years after Jones nut case statement, people think the papers done by Jones are serious efforts. A fringe few who lack the skill of basic research.

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

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

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

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

There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication.
Click to expand...
OOPS, they paid to have it published and it is clearly politically biased tripe based on a fantasy made up by Jones. Ask a real scientist next time you take the time to research properly a subject well beyond your capabilities.

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

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Why-the-Harrit-Nano-thermi-by-Michael-Fullerton-090814-310.html

No you posted lies from other people as your work. Is that your failed doltish piece of poppycock?
The real truth...
dudalb said:
The name "cmatrix" should have told us what to expect.
Take the Red Pill, dude,take the Red Pill.............
Click to expand...

Jet fuel has ten times the heat energy of thermite! Who needs the thermite scam made up by Jones? Jet fuel has more energy, Jones makes up lies.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
So do you agree with Harrit that hundreds of tons of conventional explosives were used in the towers?
Click to expand...

Harrit is a chemistry professor, not a demolitions expert. This is no debunking of his findings. Ot is "100 tons" the logic negation of "we found nanothermite". I must have a problem with the english language. I would have thought "we found no nanothermite" would be debunking. You possibly have a problem with logic. But I am here to help you.:D
 
paulheinze said:
Unfortunately this energy was not present anymore 10 minutes after impact.
Click to expand...
But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again.

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

I love how you dismiss 315 tons of TNT heat energy in each of the jet fuel impacts. Gee how much thermite did Jones bring to the WTC in his insane ideas? Please tell us exactly how much termite it takes!? You can't? What is the matter, you don't have the facts? Can't you do physics or chemistry?
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
But the burning contents of the building were also ten times more heat energy than thermite. ... failed again.

Paper has more energy, sugar has more energy. This is why you fail to comprehend 911, you lack physics and chemistry. You should have been a nerd instead of a conspiracy theorist grasping for the dirt dumb dribble of failed scientist and delusional nut cases to repeat freely without thinking.
Click to expand...
The energy release rate of paper is somewhat slower than the rate of thermite. Try it out, light a fire with paper on the motor block of your car. Maybe the paper wll melt through it and you prove me wrong. Or do it like the history channel, put a steel beam on one point and a pile of paper, wood or anything 10 meters away and let the vast amount of heat energy do the rest.;)

Explosives have smaller energy densities because they contain the oxidizer, whereas paper needs air. This is also the reason why they react faster and can be more destructive.
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
It's a lot worse: it had twice the energy that thermite could have :)

McHrozni
Click to expand...

nanoenergetic materials can contain organic compounds in order to enhance energy density and in order to produce gas on reaction. It makes them explosive.
 
BigAl said:
That's a plus as far as heating beams goes.
Click to expand...
If you consider the energy lost to the gaseous products which have not the tendency to stick to a steel beam it is rather a disadvantage. You will need some thermal isolation like in a foundry.
 
paulheinze said:
nanoenergetic materials can contain organic compounds in order to enhance energy density and in order to produce gas on reaction. It makes them explosive.
Click to expand...

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

In any case, nobody knows how to make therm-anything cut immense beams and make horizontal cuts.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
To the extent this is true, it means they go BOOM and nobody heard a BOOM consistant with man-nade demolition at WTC on 9/11.
Click to expand...

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

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



Your hypothesis is not logical.

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

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

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

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

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

Not quite. They haven't crossed that finish line yet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom