Dear
cmatrix: In your brief career here, you have yet to make a single accurate or useful statement. I'll demonstrate.
Many "debunkers" maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. [...]
The red/gray chips found all had uniform red/gray layers and identical composition [1].
Wrong. Dr. Jones describes layers from roughly 10 to 100 microns in thickness, hardly "uniform." He also shows plots of two different elemental compositions. Furthermore, the only pseudo-independent to see these particles, Dr. Henry-Couannier, complained that in the sample he received,
there were no such chips. His were strictly of the "Red" variety, not bi-layered at all.
In nano-thermite, at least either the aluminum or iron oxide particles are 100 nanometers (nm) (100 billionths of a meter) or less [2]. The red layer contains plate-like aluminum components 40 nm in thickness mixed in a solidified matrix with highly uniform iron-rich rhomboid components [1]. Random mixing of building material can't create such uniform highly engineered materials.
Nope. The size of the particles observed is consistent with pigments in paint. The rhomboid components are also much wider than 100 nm, which means they aren't nanotech at all.
There is absolutely no evidence that The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a vanity publication.
There is
abundant evidence that Bentham is a vanity publication. I confirmed that Dr. Jones's earlier paper was never properly reviewed over a year go in person, as you can read in my posts in
this thread. I have
personally been a target of Bentham's spam e-mail. Real academics
blew the "fraud" whistle on Bentham before Dr. Jones had ever heard of them. The editor-in-chief resigned over this paper in specific.
Don't give me any crap about not knowing how open journals work, either. A society I'm involved in is putting together one of its own. It will not work anything like the Bentham fiasco.
This is also not how we know the paper is crap. We know it's crap because its contents are crap. The fact that it's in a vanity journal is just frosting on the urinal cake.
Marie-Paule Pileni, the former Open Chemical Physics Journal editor in chief, in fact seems to have the ideal background to judge this paper. She has a thorough background in physical chemistry and chemical physics, as well as with explosives. She also has extensive connections to the defense industry [8]. These facts suggest more of her stretching the truth and resigning under pressure than due to incompetence or indignation. This paper leads to the undeniable implication that some of the most powerful people on Earth lied about what happened on 9/11 and were even possibly involved in the WTC tower demolitions. Would this not be a massive potential source of political pressure? Enough pressure for the editor to lie and resign?
This is a classic example of the
limiting case of inflation -- anyone who disagrees with you suddenly becomes "suspicious." You never even stop to consider that she might have a point.
If she's a tool of the establishment, and Bentham and the paper are otherwise legit, why wouldn't she
stop the paper, rather than publish it and then resign? Your accusation is not only spurious, it's not self-consistent. Typical Truth Movement BS, that's what it is.
According to NIST the primer paint contains large amounts of chromium, magnesium and zinc [9] but only trace amounts of chromium and zinc are sometimes found in the red/gray chips. Such primers are designed to be highly heat resistant. The red/gray chips ignite at 430C. According to NIST the primer paint does not ignite even at 800 C. Such primers are designed to be heat resistant not explosive.
No, no, no. First of all, we don't know that these samples even came from the WTC in the first place. Second of all, see the word
sometimes I highlighted for you, above? That's a huge problem for you. It shows that your sample
must be contaminated.
Think about it. What you're now proposing is not one, but
two kinds of "nanothermite," one with chromium and zinc, and one without. Why on earth would anyone do this?
The best hypothesis is that you're looking at two (or more) different kinds of paint. One of those happens to be a good fit to the Tnemec primer used in the WTC. That paint is also
not particularly heat resistant. It's an anti-corrosive. It has absolutely nothing to do with the fire protection system of the structure. That is carried out by gypsum board, which lay
on top of the Tnemec paint.
Regarding ignition temperature, you have to consider the system response of the paint. NIST does not say what its ignition temperature is. You merely inferred that from the temperature NIST used in its "mud-cracking" tests. Well, guess what, if you actually
read NIST, in specific NCSTAR1-3C, you will see that the paint only appears to survive long enough to "mud crack" when it is shielded from the atmosphere, i.e. hidden behind a concrete floor pan or similar structure. It is also adhering to a steel column -- that's the whole point -- which is a pretty good local heat sink. So it's more than just exposure to that temperature that matters. To withstand such high temperatures, it also has to be kept out of the open air. NIST reports that, where the steel was exposed, the paint is simply
gone. So you have no evidence that the Tnemec primer, or any other paint, in fact does survive higher temperatures than Dr. Jones's samples.
You are correct, however, that the paint is not explosive. But then, neither are Dr. Jones's samples.
Every "debunker" argument leveled against the nano-thermite paper reeks of faulty reasoning and ignorance of the facts. Those that use illogical reasoning and who distort and ignore facts are not skeptics but pathological skeptics. Pathological skepticism has absolutely no place in science.
Dead wrong. You've presented a remarkable strawman. The vast majority of our counter-arguments about Dr. Jones's conclusions are factual, and have nothing to do with the few things above you've cited. In specific:
- The "nanothermite" samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind.
- The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species.
- Regardless of what it actually is, there's no evidence it was actually in the WTC to begin with, and considerable evidence against. The sampling strategy is wholly inadequate. A more thorough methodology was applied by Lioy et al., and they found no nanothermite at all. They did, however, find that a large fraction of the dust originated as paint, of numerous types.
- There is absolutely no coherent explanation for why nanothermite would be in the structure in the first place. It offers no advantages, either as an explosive or an igniter, over cheaper, less troublesome, actually available ordinary technologies.
- Absolutely no one has corroborated these findings, and the one person who was given a sample of the dust couldn't even match the visual description claimed by Dr. Jones.
Refute those arguments, and I might listen. But you can't, obviously. Plus there are even a couple more that I'm saving to see if you have any chance of ever knowing what you're talking about.
===
Your other posts contain even more breathtaking errors. This demonstrates that you're just passing on stuff you've heard. You are ignorant of the actual science. For example:
My guess is Harrit is referring to nano-thermite not conventional explosives. I think it was a mistake for him to talk about conventional explosives as it leads to annoying misdirections like this.
Your suspicion is wrong. Dr. Jones has also confirmed the "conventional explosives" hybrid belief in conversation with Dr. Greening.
The chips have the chemical signature of nano-thermite. The chips have ultra fine highly engineered components embedded in an organic matrix. That's it, they're done. The fact that the chips contain a massive amount of oxygen, that is its own oxygen source, is sufficient for anyone with an understanding of elementary chemistry that it would ignite in an oxygen-poor environment.
Totally wrong. An aluminum wheel on a rusty hub has the same chemical signature of nanothermite, too... Dr. Jones has not demonstrated, indeed has not even attempted to show, that the chips contain any available oxygen at all. In his burn tests, oxygen was provided from the atmosphere, not from his chips.
Here's a hint again. Fire-proof paints are designed to be fireproof not explosive.
The paint was not fireproof, was not designed to be fireproof, and is not explosive. The samples from Dr. Jones are not explosive either.
The chips, like thermite, contain a huge amount of oxygen so they don't need air to react.
They most certainly do not contain a "huge amount of oxygen." Even in thermite, the oxygen is there in the form of rust, hardly a "huge amount." There are no exotic oxidizers found or even speculated about by Dr. Jones.
Gee you might consider reading the paper in question.
Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC-
204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004.
I've read the paper. I've read several others, as well. Take a look:
https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/318263.pdf
http://www.enme.umd.edu/~mrz/pdf_papers/2004_CM_FeO.pdf
And there is also Tillotsen
et al. (2002) which is not available on-line, but I've read that as well.
Nothing in any of those papers is consistent with Dr. Jones's findings, or appropriate for use in demolition.
Oh you mean the spectrographs which show no significant chromium, zinc and magnesium in the red/gray chips but which NIST says are in the primer paint? I'm sure the rest of your "evidence" is as solid as this.
Covered above. Dr. Jones is dealing with more than one kind of paint. One of his samples does in fact contain chromium, zinc, magnesium. You're trying to pull a bait-and-switch here. Tsk, tsk.
Wow! I was very impressed by the complete lack of Fe in the Kaolinite. Of course its paint. How foolish of me. Its a magical paint that doesn't dissolve in MEK like most paint and explodes when heated.
Red Tnemec is more of a ceramic than a traditional paint, and it's resistant to MEK. Read NCSTAR1-3.
Yes he does because he read the paper. The spheres were produced right after igniting the chips. A little wishful thinking is a dangerous thing.
There is no evidence that iron microspheres are produced by burning the chips. And if it was, that's a big problem for you -- because the chips were burned in a DSC. They never reached a temperature high enough to melt steel, nor were they in an enviroment where iron would form microspheres through large-scale melting and surface tension. So either those microspheres were there from the start, or you've found a reaction that creates them at much lower temperatures. (The first choice is the correct one.)
Yup, the first nano-composites.
Ordinary paint routinely contains, as pigments, metal in ~100 nm sizes in regular shapes. It's not as hard to make as you might think.
===
Your other conduct is simply asinine:
Yeah I've read it already which was the whole point of starting this thread. maybe you should take your own advice chuckles.
Edited by Gaspode:
Edited for Rule 12
Edited by Gaspode:
Edited for Rule 12
JC! is there a "debunker" here with an IQ higher than a rotting turnip?
No, the biggest problem with Harrit's paper is the incredibly dumb responses arm-chair "debunkers" come up with in their limp-wristed attempts to refute it.
[Redacted, since you apologized for this one]
Where will Sunstealer publish these amazing results? On a Froot Loops box perhaps?
Yeah there's almost a whole periodic table that wasn't in the chips.
Edited by Gaspode:
Edited for Rule 12
Any one of those is a reportable offense, so I suspect you won't last long.
===
September 11th is over. So is the Truth Movement. Yesterday was you guys's big day, and you didn't even show up. It's time to stop playing and get on with your life.
It should be obvious to all that the vast majority of those left in the Truth Movement aren't even thinking at this point. Instead, they're all playing a demented game of "Telephone," where one Truth Movement figure will say something, another will repeat it slightly out of context, slightly quote-mined, etc., until we get to a guy like you. You don't have the foggiest idea about nanothermite. You aren't capable of carrying on a discussion of analytical chemistry. You don't have the temperment to learn from your betters, either, which is why it is stubbornness, not insight, that typifies your posts.
If you have any actual interest in the subject, take some science classes, and talk to neutral people about your beliefs. You will be set straight by virtually every physics teacher you come across. Then, you should ask yourself a question: Is the whole world in on the plot, or am I just wrong? Once you have that question resolved, you're welcome to join us back here. Good luck to you.
