Questions about nano-thermite

[dtugg]

Not that it's relevant to the topic at hand, but Google is not a verb, it's a corporate brand name.

It's both. Another failure for you.

 

[NutCracker]

Huh? is there anyone here who can translate Imbecile to English for me? I can't understand this.

Who was lecturing on forum rules again?


Well, English is not my first language, so I may have garbled the grammer a bit. But I think I stated my point sufficiently clear. I'd be interested to hear if/when anyone, other than you, doesn't understand it. Arms up, please.

I'm glad I could help. Here's the definition of "scientific method" from Princeton's wordnet project that you can refer to if you ever get confused again:
"scientific method (a method of investigation involving observation and theory to test scientific hypotheses)"
Note that nowhere in the definition of the scientific method do you find any mention of "peer review".

Scientific method =/= scientific process. You should have looked up the definition of the latter.

Peer review is an integral part of the scientific process, no amount of hand-waiving on your side can make that go away.

 

[cev08241971]

You might be interested to know that Hoffman abandoned both those theories of the WTC dust clouds.

That doesn't concern me in the slightest, actually.

Let's assume there were no "pyroclastic flows". What's the relevance? It doesn't invalidate the research that proves nanothermate was present in the buildings.

All along he'd misinterpreted...

I'm sure everyone who disagrees with him thinks he was wrong "all along". I don't think you've made a convincing case for it, though.

Also, I don't know where you got that quote. As I recall Hoffman went looking for free water (not water bound in concrete) but couldn't find it.

Hoffman's objections to his own hypothesis really isn't my concern. I characterized the clouds of dust as "pyroclastic flows" and so have other people. You can quibble over whether or not this term is applicable, but in the end it doesn't matter. The clouds of pulverized (yes, pulverized) concrete were fully consistent with a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. Call it a "dust cloud" or a "pyroclastic flow" or a christmas goose, it still is what it is. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. You're trying to seize onto this term because it's all you have to hold onto to keep from sinking. It's pathetic and sad.

While you're here -- we're all still waiting for your evidence of the many independent studies into Jones' red/gray chips.

The paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal. This would be good enough for you if you agreed with the conclusions of the paper. In fact it would be the gold standard if you agreed with the conclusions of the paper. Since you do not agree, you are gyrating and gesticulating wildly, trying to distract from this standard that you and others like you CHOSE to apply to this kind of research. Either apply the standard universally or reject it universally, you can't have a double standard if you want any respect for your (even erroneous) beleifs.

 

[leftysergeant]

I'm going to ignore your insult (not respond directly), though I've reported it.

Your reporting of the comment is inappropriate. The "jackanapes' to whom I was referring is that giggling idiot from BYU.

I've given you properties that this nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust has that "paint" does not. It's explosive. it has a very high energy density.

So does paint. You need to learn a little more fire science.

It has a different chemical signature than the (one) alternative proposed ("kaolinite").

Are you in the room? We are not saying that the chips are kaolinite. We are saying that the chips are paint which CONTAINS kaolinite. There is as much difference between the two as there is between O'Dooles and Everclear.

The unreacted nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust is not "paint chips", it's an explosive pyrotechnic.

Only according to three blithering idiots who did not perform the one test that would rule out paint chips, which is combustion in the absense of oxygen. Before you start rantiong about definitive proof, show us the definitive test. Combustion in the absence of oxygen is the only proof that we with common snese and knowledge of thermite will accept.

This may or may not be true, I can't say. We know that it oxidizes explosively when heated. Paint doesn't do that.

Don't tell me or anyone who has welded that paint will not go POOF when a torch hits it. We know better.

We don't have to prove that the nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust is not paint chips, we've already demonstrated that it can only be nanothermate (and sourced only from DoD contractors). The deed is done, we don't have to sweat this any more, it's nanothermate, not paint chips.

Yes, you do. You have to show a spectograph of your "military-grade nanonthermite next to a spectograph of Tenemec red oxide primer. Else you have balloon juice.

Again with the djinn. I'm starting to wonder about your grip on reality.

There is more valid proof of the existance of djinn than of half the crap that old Chucklenuts has taguth you.

I guess it's true, people only see what they want to see.
"An analysis by Jim Hoffman argues that pyroclastic flows such as the WTC dust cloud must expand primarily by thermal heating rather than turbulent mixing with surrounding air.

Hoffman is delusional. He thinks his eyeballs are calibrated to measure the density of the dust plumes. The boy's headbolts have rattled loose.

He shows that the pyroclastic flow from the North Tower collapse expanded to approximately three times the original volume of the tower. According to Hoffman, this expansion is due to either heating of the air mass within the towers, or boiling of the water contents of the concrete."

Did that half-wit bother to compare this to the expansion of the dust cloud from any other building demolition? And, if the twit even showed that much scholarly ambition, did he also calculate how much bigger the dust cloud would be with about twenty tons or so more dry wall than noraml inside the buildings? Bet he didn't, since the stupid sack of fail can't even tell the difference between a turbidity flow and a pyroclastic flow.

I know what libel is. When you make claims that you know to be false, or that you could reasonably be expected to believe to be false, that is libel.

We have no reason to believe that you or Chucklenuts have a clue about what is in paint or super-thermite/thermate.termite or whatever mythical concoction you want to say was in his undocumented dust samples.

You keep insisting that explosive material with a high energy density and the exact chemical signature of thermite is paint chips. It's mind-boggling.

Show me that Tenemec red oxide primer does not have the same signature and we will have to admit that you have something resembling a point.

 

[cev08241971]

Well, English is not my first language, so I may have garbled the grammer a bit.

You misunderstand, it's not the words that I don't understand, or the grammar, it's the relevance I'm missing. I don't understand why you would come up with such a non sequitur hypothetical situation that appears to illuminate nothing. That's what I meant when I asked if somebody could translate from Imbecile to English. Quite frankly the post looked to me like it had been composed by an Imbecile in a language only imbeciles can fully appreciate.

Scientific method =/= scientific process. You should have looked up the definition of the latter.

No, I shouldn't have. You should stop telling people what you think they should do. I quoted the definition of the scientific method because it is fundamental (and ONLY it is fundamental) to science. Peer review is an irrelevant political process that is rife with potential for abuse and fraud, to say nothing of the abject failure of peer review to notice (even deliberate) errors. it is not part of the scientific method, or the "scientific process", as you call it, or part of science in any form.

Peer review is an integral part of the scientific process...

See above where I illustrate that peer review is an irrelevant political process, not any part of science or the "scientific process" and certainly not part of the scientific method.

...no amount of hand-waiving on your side can make that go away.

Funny...I was just about to say the same thing...to you...

 

[D'rok]

I didn't lie, so I have nothing to admit.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply made a mistake, despite the fact that you stated your claim in the strongest and absolutest of terms. Here, once again, is your "mistake":

There has already been an abundance of independent analysis of this material.

...

To suggest that Jones' research itself hasn't been reviewed by independent researchers is comical.

...

Many researchers have repeated this research with other samples of World Trade Center dust and arrived at identical conclusions...independently.

...

His samples aren't necessary for independent review of the procedures and the data. Such independent replication of this research has already taken place

Please show some intellectual honesty and either retract this obviously false claim or show where the independent replication of Jones' results has taken place.

 

[leftysergeant]

You misunderstand, it's not the words that I don't understand, or the grammar, it's the relevance I'm missing. I don't understand why you would come up with such a non sequitur hypothetical situation that appears to illuminate nothing. That's what I meant when I asked if somebody could translate from Imbecile to English. Quite frankly the post looked to me like it had been composed by an Imbecile in a language only imbeciles can fully appreciate.

I, for one, will no longer tolerate that sort of comments from someone who does not undersatand how one handles forensic evidence or the meanings of words like "pyroclastic."

You have repeatedly insisted that because the chipos that Chucklenuts studied do not have the same chemical signature as kaolinite, we who call them poaint chips are stupid or some such.

We're tired of that. Bring some evidence that Chucklenuts tested Tenemec red oxide primer against that stuff he has or stop saying that we are committing some falacy or some breach of conduct or libelling that turd from BYU.

No, I shouldn't have. You should stop telling people what you think they should do. I quoted the definition of the scientific method because it is fundamental (and ONLY it is fundamental) to science.

Here's something that every rational poerson has insisted on in this discussion. Chucklenuts and company will, in the presence of credible witnesses, cause one of their chips to combust in the absence of oxygen or he and his believers can go to hell. They will have failed to perform the one test that will kill or clear their garbage.

 

[triforcharity]

BTW, Cav,

Thanks for the stundie!!

 

[GlennB]

The paper has been published in a peer reviewed journal. This would be good enough for you if you agreed with the conclusions of the paper. In fact it would be the gold standard if you agreed with the conclusions of the paper. Since you do not agree, you are gyrating and gesticulating wildly, trying to distract from this standard that you and others like you CHOSE to apply to this kind of research. Either apply the standard universally or reject it universally, you can't have a double standard if you want any respect for your (even erroneous) beleifs.

If I had paid to have my "study" published in Bentham then I would fully understand that the scientific community would pay it no heed. In fact I'd understand if the community laughed in my face.

However, answer D'rok's post (above) and you'll be answering quite a few of us here who noticed your claim about widespread independent confirmation of Jones' findings.

 

[cev08241971]

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt

I don't need it, thanks, you can keep it.

The research has been published in a peer reviewed journal, what more could you ask for? This would be the "gold standard" for you if you agreed with the paper. Since you disagree with the paper, you now reject this standard. You can't have it both ways. I haven't made any mistake here, you've made the mistake thinking you can bully me into reversing myself.

The unreacted nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust is not paint chips. It is highly explosive, has a high energy density and could only have been produced by or on behalf of the US military (through its exclusive contractor "Technanogy"). There's no mistake there. This research has gone through the peer review process and been published in a peer reviewed journal. If you think you know of some errors in the paper or in the methods used to do the research, I'd be more than happy to entertain the notion before handily refuting you. If your only critique of the research is "nobody else has done it!", you're standing on shaky ground under a castle of sand.

 

[NutCracker]

You misunderstand, it's not the words that I don't understand, or the grammar, it's the relevance I'm missing. I don't understand why you would come up with such a non sequitur hypothetical situation that appears to illuminate nothing. That's what I meant when I asked if somebody could translate from Imbecile to English. Quite frankly the post looked to me like it had been composed by an Imbecile in a language only imbeciles can fully appreciate.

Scientific journals are supposed to publish articles that meet certain scientific standards. They are not supposed to publish junk. Hence they have the process of peer-review.

Airliners are not supposed to take bombs on board. Hence they have security procedures.

Bentham claimed to be peer-reviewd. Yet they accepted a computer generated junk article for publication.

You cliamed this affair has no bearing on the quality of their pear review process.

My hypothetical airliner claims to have security procedures. Now, if I was able to carry a parcel on board that could very well be a bomb (nitrated compounds, wires, PCB boards, batteries) without being detected, that would certainly cast doubt on the quality on of the airliners safety procedures, isn't it?

So we have two cases of failure of a QA system. The Bentham case is not a failure, you claim. If we accept this, we most also accept that the other failure is no such thing, but rather a consequence of fraud (me carrying something on board that comes close, or is, a bomb) on my part.

Well, that was not too hard to understand, now, was it?

No, I shouldn't have. You should stop telling people what you think they should do. I quoted the definition of the scientific method because it is fundamental (and ONLY it is fundamental) to science. Peer review is an irrelevant political process that is rife with potential for abuse and fraud, to say nothing of the abject failure of peer review to notice (even deliberate) errors. it is not part of the scientific method, or the "scientific process", as you call it, or part of science in any form.


See above where I illustrate that peer review is an irrelevant political process, not any part of science or the "scientific process" and certainly not part of the scientific method.


Funny...I was just about to say the same thing...to you...

I see, peer-review isn't part of the scientific process. Well then, give me the name of one established, respected scientific journal that does not employ it.

 

[triforcharity]

No, the gold standard is NOT an open journal with questionable practices.

 

[D'rok]

I don't need it, thanks, you can keep it.

The research has been published in a peer reviewed journal, what more could you ask for?

I'm asking you to substantiate your claim that the results have been independently replicated. You made this claim many times. Do you have the intellectual honesty to admit that your claim is false?

 

[twinstead]

You know cev, you are never going to convince REAL scientists to even give you the time of day much less that the collapses were suspicious with your arrogant attitude. You DO realize that there actually are scientists and structural engineers on this very forum, right?

The reaction you get here is basically the exact same reaction you will get from scientists in the "real" world. I'm not so sure that your debate technique is going to have a positive result in the halls of academia or the scientific or engineering community. Ask Jones what kind of reception he received from his own university.

 

[cev08241971]

If I had paid to have my "study" published in Bentham then I would fully understand that the scientific community would pay it no heed.

Then you should pay no peer reviewed journals any heed, since it's typical in the industry (yes, it is just a business, surprise surprise) for submissions to be accompanied by a fee to cover the costs of publication. And in return the publisher "gives" copies of the issue to the author. That you don't know this is testament to your ignorance of the process. I'd be willing to bet you've never gone through the peer review process or participated in it in any fashion except as jeering sideline spectator.

In fact I'd understand if the community laughed in my face.

I'd understand that, too. I'm surprised more people aren't doing this right now, actually.

This would be a fun experiment: Why don't you try to see if you can get Bentham to publish a paper you've authored. I think if we wait for that to happen we'll all die still waiting. What do you bet? I bet it's even harder to get published through them now, since the fraud perpetrated on them has been exposed.

However, answer D'rok's post (above)...

I've responded to the specious claims in that post, but thanks for the heads up.

and you'll be answering quite a few of us here who noticed your claim about widespread independent confirmation of Jones' findings.

The research was peer reviewed and published in a peer reviewed journal. What more do you want? This would be the "gold standard" if it was a source you produced and one with which you agreed. This source is one with which you disagree, though, so suddenly "peer review" isn't good enough.

If you have some issues with the methods or conclusions of the experiments, feel free to voice them. If your only concern is "nobody else has done it!", kindly sit down and shut up, thanks. There's enough noise from you (and others like you) in this thread already without you repeating the same (answered) challenge over and over again.

If you have nothing new to add to this discussion about the nanothermate discovered in the World Trade Center dust, I'll proceed to ignoring you now.

 

[Sunstealer]

Your thoughts are noted.

The material discovered in the World Trade Center dust samples indicate that thermate was used (nano or otherwise).

Wrong.

Please show me the DATA in the PAPER that shows Sulphur and secondly QUANTIFY the amount present.

The "nano" part just means the materials are organized on the nano scale, for more rapid reactions. In "nano" thermite, this means the elemental aluminum is sorted into almost pure (with a tiny bit of O bound to the outside of it) elemental aluminum and iron oxide, both materials are generally suspended in a relatively inert organic matrix.

Wow! Please show, using the DATA in the PAPER, what this organic matrix is. Harrit et al didn't, so please enlighten us.

The aluminum is most likely the orthogonal nodules (minimal surface area to oxidize prior to reacting) and the iron oxide comprises the hexagonal "wafers".

Wrong! You didn't read the paper did you?

The DATA in the PAPER clearly shows, from EDS/EDX spectra, that the hexagonal platelets contain the Aluminium (along with Silicon and Oxygen [Iron and Carbon]). Why does your nano-therm*te contain so much Silicon?

Your orthogonal (snigger - wrong word on all accounts) is actually rhombohedral and from the DATA in the PAPER, the EDX/EDS spectra shows Iron and Oxygen (C, Si, Al are from the background) and therefore Fe2O3.

The most efficient shape for low surface area and hence minimal Al2O3 would be a sphere.

This is why I don't post often - I only post when something is glaringly wrong these days.

I'll bet that my questions will not be answered or acknowledged.

The organic material is a binder most likely something like viscous epoxy, the platelets are a filler - kaolinite matches pretty damn well, the rhombohedral particles are red iron oxide pigment. 3 components in paint. I suggest you read my posts in this thread.

 

[Sunstealer]

Regardless of what you have heard, paint chips are not highly explosive, and don't contain nanoaluminum, sulfur or even iron oxide in anything other than trace amounts. We have irrefutable evidence that the World Trade Center was demolished with nano thermate, not exploding paint.

Christ on a bike - iron oxide pigments have been used for thousands of years and that's what we predominantly use to colour something red. Please define trace amounts using data from the Harrit et al paper that you haven't read.

 

[cev08241971]

...you are never going to convince REAL scientists to even give you the time of day much less that the collapses were suspicious with your arrogant attitude.

Scientists don't care about my attitude. Speaking of "convince", I'm not convinced you know what a scientist is. A scientist isn't somebody who rejects information because they find the person giving it to them to be annoying or for whatever reason behaving differently than they think they should.

You DO realize that there actually are scientists and structural engineers on this very forum, right?

I know there's at least one scientist in this forum, me. Beyond that I don't feel confident postulating even a single other scientist. What most people consider to be science is nothing more than a collection of fables based on wishful thinking and flights of fancy. It's always been this way, the majority is always wrong. The frontier is the domain of the loner. Pioneers can neither be timid nor boastful. All factual knowledge goes through these stages of resistance, violent opposition, acceptance, then the certainty that it is and always has been self-evident. It wasn't the 99 that looked through a polished piece of glass and overruled centuries of religious and academic dogma known only through a glass darkly, it was the 1 who saw clearly where everyone else was (to a certain extent willfully) blind.

The reaction you get here is basically the exact same reaction you will get from scientists in the "real" world.

Again I think you're confusing scientists with people who are easily led around by their emotions or the "attitudes" of other people.

I'm not so sure that your debate technique is going to have a positive result in the halls of academia or the scientific or engineering community.

I haven't tried to or sought to enter debate in this forum at all. I didn't come here to debate, only to present facts and correct errors.

Ask Jones what kind of reception he received from his own university.

I'm not the least bit interested in petty personal political squabbles.

 

[dtugg]

Twoofer, why didn't your cult leaders Jones and Harritt see if their nanothem*te paint chips would combust in an inert environment? Seems like a pretty obvious test if they want to prove the material thermatic. Yet they didn't do it. Almost as if they knew what would happen if they did.

 

[Sunstealer]

Do electron microscopes operate differently at Cal-Tech or MIT or Cornell or Princeton?

You don't understand the limitations of the SEM and its qualitative techniques. Did you know that zero SEM work is actually needed to analyse and identify the material that Jones separated?

FTIR and XRD would have done the job immeasurably better than a SEM because those will give quantitative data that will lead to the identification of the material comprehensively. Only amateurs continue to cock about with the SEM once an hours worth of basic investigation is done because professionals know its limitations.

A couple of samples sent to an independent lab at the cost of less than $1000 would be definitive. But we all know that a definitive test wouldn't show thermite so Jones will never do it.