Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Mark Basile, a Chemical Engineer from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, had questions about the official story on his own, heard Dr. Jones speak, and decided to replicate the WTC dust examination for himself. He points out that nano-aluminum was found, a controlled substance difficult to purchase. He encourages independent scientists with equipment, such as a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, to examine the dust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
Wouldn't that be more useful for identifying known compounds than determining what un-known compounds were in the dust? Looks like he's putting the cart before the horse. Anyway, If my understanding is correct it would prove that NO thermite was in the dust (unless Harrits data is wrong).
Mark Basile, a Chemical Engineer from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, had questions about the official story on his own, heard Dr. Jones speak, and decided to replicate the WTC dust examination for himself. He points out that nano-aluminum was found, a controlled substance difficult to purchase. He encourages independent scientists with equipment, such as a Differential Scanning Calorimeter, to examine the dust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
Seriously, man, you should stop taking truther claims at face value without double-checking them yourself. You'll find very quickly that they are not reliable.
Mark Basile, a Chemical Engineer from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, ... He points out that nano-aluminum was found, a controlled substance difficult to purchase...
Sunstealer, If you don't mind would be kind enough to list all your formal complaints about the Active Thermitic Materials paper? I have not studied the minute details of this paper as much as you claim to have studied. However I've seen a lot of retorts to complaints you've already mentioned. For instance, your signature quote claims "Kaolinite Found" in Niel's dust samples. Quite a bold statement to make since you haven't analyzed the samples. A lot of your complaints are rooted in speculation. I don't want to waste too much of my time trying to respond to all of your complaints because I know there is more important things I could be studying in regards to 9/11 truth. And if I was a chemist I might be more apt to go into the minute details with you. However, that's not the case. But if I can find some retorts to your complaints, without having to put in much effort, I will send them your way.
For instance, here is a quote I found when googling Kaolinite + thermite + 9/11:
Dr. Benway: "What does Kaolin have to do with free aluminum? Do you not know the difference between an atom and a molecule? I didn't think so. Go sit in the corner and shut up until you learn something about basic chemistry. You are pathetic."
Dr Benway: "Paint does not contain elemental aluminum. Kaolinite does not contain elemental aluminum. No one in their right mind would put elemental aluminum into paint. Kaolin is added to paint not to make it red--the iron oxide does that--you add it as a fire retardant. Do you seriously think aluminum powder would be added to paint as a fire retardant?"
Anyone can read the paper on their own and see it was nonsense, to make up lies about 911. Or not.
Did the fraud thermite paper find elemental aluminum? Read the paper, see if they proved it. Their samples look like rust in the dust, with some other stuff. Maybe they found pages of National Geographic; but those might have more energy than thermite. Darn.
For instance, here is a quote I found when googling Kaolinite + thermite + 9/11:
Dr. Benway: "What does Kaolin have to do with free aluminum? Do you not know the difference between an atom and a molecule? I didn't think so. Go sit in the corner and shut up until you learn something about basic chemistry. You are pathetic."
Dr Benway: "Paint does not contain elemental aluminum. Kaolinite does not contain elemental aluminum. No one in their right mind would put elemental aluminum into paint. Kaolin is added to paint not to make it red--the iron oxide does that--you add it as a fire retardant. Do you seriously think aluminum powder would be added to paint as a fire retardant?"
It was info to help those lost in the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth, where lies, ignorance and failed opinions rule. What is wrong with the graph?
Clay from a graph? Oh, not a chemist? A skilled researcher can tell me where that clay was from. Those fooled by Jones, better get back to school, many are too gullible to be out and about.
It is clay and it looks like Jones has clay. See... http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
fig 11. Read and see the fraud of Jones, he is insane and he fooled you. What did Jones mix with his clay? Did they get scraps of dust from partially burned pages of National Geographic? It is funny they found the most common elements on earth in their dust samples from NYC. Sad they forgot that zero evidence of products from thermite reactions were found at the WTC. Darn, they make up stuff when it was not used. They found Fe, Al, Si. Why is Si in their thermite? Riddle me this...
You should research this first before making up nonsense and do what you are doing.
anti-truther? You are not a truther, you are a spreader of regurgitated lies, not even close to the truth. Your use of truth is 1984 and NAZI like.
Darn, you can't figure out clay from a graph? Oh, you are not a chemist. Too bad. Better get back to school, you are way to gullible to be out and about.
It is clay and it looks like Jones has clay. See... http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
fig 11. Read and see the fraud of Jones, he is insane and he fooled you.
Neils Harrit: I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.
RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?
Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!
"Hundreds of tons", got that P4T?
This is less than a half ton going off.
But Harrit says that more than 400 times this amount was used.
This is just seventeen tons being detonated (from 30,000 feet up, no less).
But this is still way too small for what your sainted scandinavian says was used.
This is ~100 tons being detonated.
We're getting close now. This explosion would have shattered every window in the WTC complex as well as every window on the opposite sides of the surrounding streets. Thousands of casualties from flying glass alone would have occurred.
But it's still not enough... moving on...
FIVE HUNDRED TONS! THIS... is what Harrit says was used.
Your buddy Marmaduke (a "Great Dane" famous for crapping himself in public and slobbering uncontrollably) claims THIS is what happened on 9/11. A pile of explosives large enough to crush the superstructure of a battleship from a thousand feet away was somehow smuggled into the busiest office buildings in the financial capital of the western world without anyone noticing. Enough explosives were used to rival a backpack nuke, yet 2899 of 2900 engineers think that airplane impacts and fires did it.
No wonder Harrit and friends had to cheat to get this garbage into a paper that doesn't actually have a peer review process.
Not satisfied with Harrits obvious incompetence and dementia, you had to pipe in with the hysterical claim that this mass of explosives would not create recognizable seismic signatures. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot, pal.
I sent a copy of Harrit’s paper to an analytical chemist I’ve worked with for over 25 years. His initial comment: Quote: This is what you get when people misuse the little knowledge that they have. I hate to tell them this but, it’s paint.
When I asked him to expand on his comment above and also asked permission to publish his comments on this forum he said: Quote: I don’t mind if you forward my comments, but you’re right, you cannot convince anyone who has decided to ignore any contradictory evidence. Adding to my comments:
Quote:
The authors compare to “paint”. What kind of paint? They are ignoring the literally thousands of types and formulations of paints and primers - not just in the pigments or fillers but the organic basis (epoxy, urethane, alkyd, etc) of the paints (which makes their MEK comparison meaningless). They explain away the high C and O as contaminants rather than consider the most likely explanation – paint. Additionally, they did not analyze the samples by the two most likely methods to confirm or refute the possibility that the chips are paint, FTIR and Mass Spec. Given an hour in my lab with a few of these chips and my FTIR, I could tell with a high degree of certainty whether these chips are paint or not. Re: the Fe/Si spheres. I have analyzed the residues from numerous fires and these types of spheres are actually fairly common. Not much can be concluded from their presence. Final comment: Conscientious analytical chemists, whether they work for the gov’t or private labs, don’t care what the results indicate. All that they are concerned with is that the results are accurate. This is meant absolutely literally. I have run tens of thousands of analyses over the years for people I liked, didn’t like and everything in between and it never mattered to me if their pet theories or assumptions were upheld or went down in flames. These considerations are simply not part of the analytical process.
Once again, Patriots, you take the truther tactic of focussing on the irrelevant point.
Whether people are biased or not does not matter. What matters is whether the claims they make are correct. And 16.5 gave you sufficient information in his post:
The statement is that "...your question has already been answered here..." - a claim of fact which is verifiable and not subject to bias. It is either true or not true. So deal with that fact and stop the evasions....unless persisting in evasions is your game which seems highly likely.
Actually I doubt that there are many if any genuine truthers here. That is people genuinely seeking to learn the truth about the events of 9/11. From reading their posts it is easy to conclude that most of the so-called truthers are only playing games.
I have not studied the minute details of this paper as much as you claim to have studied. However I've seen a lot of retorts to complaints you've already mentioned. For instance, your signature quote claims "Kaolinite Found" in Niel's dust samples. Quite a bold statement to make since you haven't analyzed the samples.
You should actually read the link in his signature. He takes Jones's own data and uses it to demonstrate that the material is kaolin. There's no need to analyze it on his own when Jones and Harrit provide the very data that demonstrates it's kaolin.
A lot of your complaints are rooted in speculation. I don't want to waste too much of my time trying to respond to all of your complaints because I know there is more important things I could be studying in regards to 9/11 truth. And if I was a chemist I might be more apt to go into the minute details with you. However, that's not the case. But if I can find some retorts to your complaints, without having to put in much effort, I will send them your way.
For instance, here is a quote I found when googling Kaolinite + thermite + 9/11:
Dr. Benway: "What does Kaolin have to do with free aluminum? Do you not know the difference between an atom and a molecule? I didn't think so. Go sit in the corner and shut up until you learn something about basic chemistry. You are pathetic."
Dr Benway: "Paint does not contain elemental aluminum. Kaolinite does not contain elemental aluminum. No one in their right mind would put elemental aluminum into paint. Kaolin is added to paint not to make it red--the iron oxide does that--you add it as a fire retardant. Do you seriously think aluminum powder would be added to paint as a fire retardant?"
And again, if you read his past posts (the third one I linked for you above), you'll see where Sunstealer demonstrates that the aluminum is indeed not free, but rather is bound. And again, he uses Jones and Harrit's own data to prove this.
Advocates of the paper refuse to acknowledge that the conclusions Jones, Harrit, et. al. are actually contradicted by the data they provide. That is the entire problem with the paper. Read above.
You need to work on this. I said your use of truth is 1984 and NAZI like. You are not a NAZI, they took action, and were evil. You don't do anything about your 911 truth beliefs because they are based on nonsense, there is nothing you can do.
I was comparing your use of truth, your use of truth is 1984 and NAZI like. No big deal, it means 911 truth is really 911 lies. Simple "1984/NAZI like" use of terms.
I am one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge trained in the study of chemistry. oops in a broad sense I am a CHEMIST. Have to update facebook...
I have mixed chemicals and formed feats of magic, burning poplar tree, spewing bricks into multiple yards with a simple mix of chemicals, including K N O C H , to form a sweet mixture to show off. I am a CHEMIST, a pilot, an engineer with a masters. But a grade school education is all that is needed to see Jones and Harrit failed.
Exactly my point about Sunstealer's jref thread full of chemistry stuff being a one-sided conversation. I don't believe I've ever seen a genuine chemist interact with Sunstealer on his/her points. I'm not sure but I do not beleive that Sunstealer has interacted with any of the authors of the Active Thermitic Material paper as well - which i'd think would be a pretty good idea if you were truly serious about reviewing the paper.
First of all, I don't agree with Niels here, and I never had. Fortunately this quote is from an interview and not a scientific paper. I wonder if he ever clarified that quote.
Second, the explosives you singled out in your youtubes are probably not the same explosives that Niels had in mind. Also he probably said "tonnes" and not "tons".
I am one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge trained in the study of chemistry. oops in a broad sense I am a CHEMIST. Have to update facebook...
I have mixed chemicals and formed feats of magic, burning popular trees, spewing bricks into multiple yards with a simple mix of chemicals, including K N O C H , to form a sweet mixture to show off. I am a CHEMIST, a pilot, an engineer with a masters. But a grade school education is all that is needed to see Jones and Harrit failed.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
