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

[R.Mackey]

Here's 500 tons.

 

[triforcharity]

Sweet Baby Jesus!! The WTC would have been found in FLORIDA!!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Sweet Baby Jesus!! The WTC would have been found in FLORIDA!!

Cmatrix, if you are still lurking, please explain why none of the WTC was found in Florida as is predicted by Dr. Harrits hypotheses.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Here's 500 tons.

That's the detonation of 500 tons of pure liquid awsome, you mean.

 

[triforcharity]

Possibly a low orbit of Earth, but I cannot do the calculations!

 

[R.Mackey]

That's the detonation of 500 tons of pure liquid awsome, you mean.

It was a solid. The link I provided gives you some pictures of the stack before they touched it off. One great big, roughly hemispherical pile of TNT.

So... concentrated awesome.

 

[Hokulele]

It was a solid.

Not for very long.

 

[triforcharity]

Caan you imagine what lower Manhattan looked like if that had happened?? There would have been easily 100,000 deaths.

 

[R.Mackey]

Exactly. One more persistent, and idiotic, Truther claim is of explosives "throwing large steel beams" hundreds of feet. If that's the case, then shrapnel -- probably bits of glass would be the most common -- would have been thrown for miles. Practically anyone in line of sight of the Towers would be at grave risk of nearly instant death.

Didn't happen.

 

[Justin39640]

It was a solid. The link I provided gives you some pictures of the stack before they touched it off. One great big, roughly hemispherical pile of TNT.

So... concentrated awesome.

super-nano-awesome
lol

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

super-nano-awesome
lol

DING!

Thread goes to Justin.

Next round in 3... 2... 1...

 

[Panoply_Prefect]

Here's 500 tons.

<heiwa mode>
But look! Part B (ship) does not get sunk by part A (TNT) - ergo, no global collapse. Ships and buildings are, as we all know, equally comparable.
Conclusion: It can't be CD either.
</heiwa mode>

 

[alienentity]

Here's 500 tons.

(engaging truther mode)

That's why nanothermite was used. It was able to bring the towers down in exactly the manner of a fire-driven collapse, with minimum collateral damage.

If you ever needed stronger evidence of government planning, this would be it.

(switching off truther mode)

 

[cmatrix]

This is your rebuttal? Here's a hint: If you try to make sense, people might listen.

Yes this is my rebuttal that completely demolishes you "point". Remember, you point was that the chips were not consistent because they had different thicknesses. See? I used an analogy to expose your invalid reasoning. A slice of bread is still a slice of bread no matter what the thickness.

Aluminum and iron oxide. Simple. Both very abundant chemicals in modern society.

Yes the chemicals most commonly used in thermitics. Your point again?

It's funny to see you tearing down Dr. Couannier. Dr. Jones is the guy that he'd backed up the findings. So did Dr. Jones lie when he said that?

Jones said he confirmed important features. Jones is not the one lying.

As for Mr. Basile, what exactly did he confirm? I don't see any data from him at all, anywhere. He hardly strikes me as independent in any event.

AFAIK Basile has independently confirmed pretty much everything but hasn't published yet. Why does he not strike you as independent? Because his work repudiates your unsupported belief system?

It's not "either" which concerns us, it's "neither." There are no explosive substances under consideration here.

Nano-thermitics are definitely explosive and the whole point of this thread.

You must be lazy indeed. I gave you several direct links.

I'm not lazy just not stupid. You gave links to a steaming pile of JREF crap that I refuse to wade through. You seem to be afraid to challenge me directly. Its almost like you are playing games to try to tire me out so your sycophants won't notice your argumentative failings. they will fall for it but not me. Put up or shut up.

She does indeed have a point. Just because it's inconvenient to your beliefs doesn't mean it disappears. Her point is that, in real journals, the editors control the review and acceptance process. At Bentham, this is not the case. Ergo, she resigned at once. This rather deflates your claim that "there is no evidence that Bentham is a vanity journal."

There is no proof there was no editorial control, only her claims. Are claims proof now? I guess all those psychics' claims are true then. I think ol' Randi is gonna take you out to the woodshed.

No evidence whatsoever that she was threatened, so this won't fly.

No evidence she wasn't threatened either. Each is a valid possibility though. See how that works?

You're missing the point. You said that it couldn't be Tnemec because Tnemec has zinc and chromium, and the samples don't. But it hasn't been established at all that the samples in fact do not contain such materials. How do you know the aluminum and iron oxide aren't the contaminants?

Maybe it has to do with the fact that there are very high concentrations of aluminum and iron oxide. Sometimes there are very small concentrations of zinc and chromium. For competent scientists, high and consistent implies essential component, low and inconsistent implies contamination.

Dr. Jones, at various times, has indeed proposed exactly this. Read his 2007 version of his delusions -- it contains examples of alternate "thermite" blends. He abandoned those, much like his "thermate" claims, to chase a slightly different shiny object. You guys follow him no matter what he says. That's not science, by the way.

Immaterial. The science and the topic at hand is this recent paper. Your attempts at diversion do nothing to refute this paper.

What explosives? Nothing under consideration here is explosive.

Nano-thermitics are definitely explosive and the whole point of this thread.

NIST did not heat the paint to 800^oC, and it's hardly surprising that it didn't explode. We don't know its ignition temperature.

You are wrong. NIST heated the primer paint beyond 800 C and it didn't ignite. NIST. NIST NCSTAR 1-3C. 2005. p434.

Telling a falsehood and then telling me that I can't change reality to suit my whims is the epitome of irony.

Falsehoods need to be proven to be false. Your vigorous hand-waving doesn't cut it.

There's no evidence of either. There are also paints with similar or even superior levels of "precison engineering." But, again, since the stuff varies in energy content by almost a factor of 10, it's hardly precise.

The evidence is in the paper which you have not yet refuted. And again ordinary paints are not designed to be explosive.

There is no explosive gas generation. The "contaminant" is, in all likelihood, the paint binder.

Nano-thermites are explosives due to the rapid gas generation from the organic matrix. If you disagree you'll need to submit a paper that refutes the NIST scientists that pioneered nano-thermites.

There is no such thing as a quiet explosive, no matter what its composition is. You also cannot paint on nanothermite and expect it to do anything, even heat the column by more than a few degrees. It's a simple calculation, albeit one far beyond the likes of you.

A bullet firing from a silencer is an example of a comparatively quiet explosion. A small explosion is quieter than a large one. Gee your simple but non-existent equation certainly is believable.

"Supposedly" is right. Dr. Couannier says otherwise. I'm not sure why I should care about Mark Basile, he doesn't appear to be knowledgeable in the relevant fields, nor does he appear to have done relevant testing. Feel free to add to this if you actually have anything.

Being a chemical engineer, Basile is certainly more knowledgeable than you in the relevant fields.

Doesn't much matter if you believe me or not. Fact is, you've brought nothing, and you can't even understand the criticism.

So you are reluctant to post more arguments because I won't understand them? Possible. Its also possible you are afraid I will cut them apart as I have with your other feeble attempts.

The presence of oxygen does not imply it's available. CO₂, for instance, would show an overwhelming amount of oxygen, but is about as inert as it gets. Take a chemistry class.

Well we know O in iron oxide is available and we know iron oxide is there. Maybe its not me who needs the chemistry class.

Why the fixation on explosives? Once again, there is no evidence at all
that the paint chips Dr. Jones has are explosive.

Hmmm...when a thread is about explosives, explosives tend to be talked about a lot. Strange I need to explain this to you. The paper discussed shows evidence of nano-thermite which is an explosive. Your hand-waving and severely flawed arguments refute neither fact.

Didn't say it did. What I said, again, is that you cannot prove the spheres weren't there to begin with. Every known sample of actual WTC dust contains microspheres, and there are plenty of non-conspiracy idiot explanations for their presence.

Umm...why would I have to prove the spheres weren't there already. Pay attention, this is extremely simple. They take a chip containing no spheres, ignite it and the spheres are produced.

This is not how you would test for that substance. Neither you nor Dr. Jones even knows how.

Your response is, to put it mildly, babble. This should concern you. Before your ideas will be accepted, before they are actually science and not pure conjecture, they will be reviewed. By real experts. Dr. Tillotsen himself, one of the inventors of the technology, will look over your work. There will be a whole room full of Ph.D.'s, academics, engineers of every stripe, from every country, going through your findings with a fine-toothed comb.

It will fail. I can destroy every one of your arguments at will, without having to even look anything up. And while I am a professional scientist, I'm not a particular expert in nanotechnology or thermitic chemistry. I'm speaking as a generalist, and I can still poke more holes in your narrative than you can even comprehend.

You will never get anywhere until you get your collective acts together. This is why the Truth Movement is dead on arrival. Of course, once you do get your acts together, you won't be Truthers anymore, so it's hardly surprising that you haven't.

I am truly impressed by that amazing display of hand-waving. What do we need of facts and logic when your inspiring beliefs will suffice.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I'm not lazy just not stupid. You gave links to a steaming pile of JREF crap that I refuse to wade through.

Lazy and stupid are just two explanations for this behavior. You were offered evidence to consider and refused to even look at it. This isn't the behavior of a skeptic or critical thinker, this is the attitude of a religious fanatic.

There is no reason for refusing to consider evidence that makes you look good.

 

[T.A.M.]

I am sorry, but milk and sugar are not always ice cream, but ice cream is always made of milk and sugar.

TAM

 

[cmatrix]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
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.




Alright, Mr. Bread. What are the two layers then? No guessing allowed - what are they?
What is the contribution of each layer in your alleged nanothermite?

Read the paper and you'll know as much as I know.

Strawman. Mackey specifically describes it as corrosion-resistant, not fire -resistant.

You fail on that one. You fail to disprove that it could be paint.

I could care less what Mackey describes it as. Paint that does not ignite at over 800 C is fire-resistant. Since the chips ignite at 430 C they are definitely not the primer paint that NIST says was on the beams.

False. The chips were combusted in the presence of oxygen, invalidating that conclusion.

So a stick of dynamite is not an explosive when ignited in air? Gee that throws my whole reality in a turmoil.

The test is meaningless unless done in an inert gas. Why was this not done? Incompetence or deliberate? What is the excuse given?

The excuse is they assumed the readers of the paper would be competent scientists not hand-waving crackpots.

Quote:
[*]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.
What is the energy density of sol-gel nanothermite? Please provide citations, no guessing allowed.
You cannot simply make this up as you go along. That is bogus.

I only reference to support a point. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

a superficial and meaningless response. Actually, you CAN find something you're not looking for. You CAN'T find something that isn't there.
In fact, you cannot show where the chips came from, since you cannot provide a source sample from any of the buildings. You are speculating.
For example, you cannot show specifically that the chips came from WTC7. Not possible. Ergo, you cannot prove that they were there.

I am not speculating, you are. The paper says the dust is from the WTC. They have evidence to support this. So far no one has been able to refute this evidence. Your hand-waving doesn't cut it.

Nor can you demonstrate a sample of 'control' nanothermite in action, painted on, sprayed on, or inhaled and sneezed onto anything. You have zero proof to back up the hypothesis.

No I can't demonstrate any nano-thermite control because only the US military has it. There are documented characteristics of it though. If your sample has these characteristics it is nano-thermite. Isn't science neat?

This does not eliminate other sources for the chips. Paint in particular.

The fact the chips are explosive and thermitic in nature rules out the possibility it is ordinary paint to the sane anyway.

Chances are you've never seen, smelled or handled sol-gel nanothermite. You might as well be talking about pixie dust, because you simply don't know. You are merely speculating about all of this.

When you and your nanothermite cult get your hands on some, show that it is chemically the same as the chips, then apply it to steel beams by means of paint brushes or rollers, then melt or explode the steel beams, come back and let us know.

We don't have to. The paper shows there is explosive nano-thermite in the dust. It doesn't make any other claims so doesn't need to support them.

Until then, you've got nuttin' kid. Nuttin' but cheap talk and pseudo scientific speculation.

But thanks for coming out anyway. We'll call you real soon.

That's funny for reasons you'll probably never understand.

 

[funk de fino]

Now I know, why steel-framed building collapse all the time due to office fires.

yes they do

 

[Ragnarok]

Anyone want to remind me why you debunkers accept the words of Jones and Harrit when they talk about demolitions, which they know nothing about, but you won't accept a word they say about nano-thermite? Talk about cherry-picking!

 

[Kent1]

"Yes this is my rebuttal that completely demolishes you "point". Remember, you point was that the chips were not consistent because they had different thicknesses. See? I used an analogy to expose your invalid reasoning. A slice of bread is still a slice of bread no matter what the thickness."
:
"Well we know O in iron oxide is available and we know iron oxide is there. Maybe its not me who needs the chemistry class."

A bullet firing from a silencer is an example of a comparatively quiet explosion. A small explosion is quieter than a large one. Gee your simple but non-existent equation certainly is believable.

"So a stick of dynamite is not an explosive when ignited in air? Gee that throws my whole reality in a turmoil."


HA HA HA!!