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 need to analyse samples when
the data from those samples is present in the paper. I'm a materials engineer (metallurgist) with 15 years experience. I use a SEM at least once every two weeks. I know what I'm looking at when I read the data so I'm more than capable of the analysis.
If I had looked at the data and the data pointed towards thermite then I would say that thermite was present. No two ways about it.
None, and I repeat, none of my
"complaints" analysis is speculation because I back each clearly presented argument with relevant links that show the data for what it is. If you had bothered to read the thread linked you would see that. I pride myself on being as thorough as possible where possible.
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.
So you won't respond to all my "complaints” but you want me to list them anyway? I'd break forum rules if I responded to this statement honestly - and that's putting it mildlyl. Do you not think that I might have better, more important things to do?
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.
So you don’t have any tertiary qualification that qualifies you to comment, yet for some reason, you will take someone else’s word because they are a truther rather than read the relevant thread and do some work. Chemists are a broad bunch with many specialities so I don't like to generalise, however, they are certainly not generally trained in materials characterisation and a good one would be looking at FTIR to characterise the organic carbon based binder material that is self evident in the paper. XRD, FTIR (with a bit of SEM work including EDS) would give a
definitive answer as to
exactly what the constituents of the red layer are. Why was this not performed? For $1000 the authors could have got an
independent lab to characterise exactly what the material is but they did not. Why not?
Why has no-one commented on the gray layer? It's not examined in detail in the paper, but in one example it strongly appears to be oxidised steel (which I have shown) yet in another it's clearly organic. Their own paper shows this but they don't comment (except to say that it may be an adhesive) nor did they put in the work to find out. How does that work?
But if I can find some retorts to your complaints, without having to put in much effort, I will send them your way.
What? So you won’t put much effort in, but you’ll do an investi-google if you can be bothered. Oh great that really makes me want to put the effort in. I spoon feed you then you sick it up because you don’t like it. Atleast you are honest about it, I'll give you that.
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."
Funny.
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?"
Nonsense. I never claimed any of that. Could you show me where they quote me claiming that?
It's obvious that this person is very young due to their style of English, the ad hominem and the way that they do not try to rebut my argument in a professional or scientific way (I don't think they've ever read the argument). Now I've known quite a few PhDs in my time including friends who are now lecturers. One of them is even a chemist!! (I still rib her about it). None of them would ever say "Do you not know the difference between an atom and a molecule? ". They may gently mock sometimes (banter and all that), but after mockery comes explanation and learning (by me). Then it's my turn!
If I'm honest I would be surprised if Dr Benway is a Dr - the language is more "World of Warcraft - I pwned U Eleventy!!11 - don't you know anything LoL - noob" than a measured response typical of those that have attained a highly respected level.
So I googled "Dr Benway" - yep it's unlikely to be a real Dr instead someone taking the character name.
Funny how you didn't give a link yet used this character with the illegitimacy of the "Dr" to give weight. This is no more than a random bod you've found on the intertubes.
I've never said that kaolin is added to make paint red. Why would I do that when it is already seen quite clearly that there are rhombohedral Fe2O3 crystals in the samples, which are obviously going to act as a red pigment and I've stated as such? Do you think a metallurgist wouldn't know that rust is red?
I don't know who Dr Benway is, but they don't understand and if you read their comments it's clear that they have never read any of my arguments.
There was never any elemental aluminium found. It's as simple as that. Harrit et al found an aluminosilicate. They try to get around this by soaking a different chip (I refer to it as the MEK chip which has different characteristics) to the chip samples a-d in the paper (which have SEM photos and EDS spectra - these are also the chips subject to DSC) and then claim a separation of the aluminium, silicon and oxygen leaving silicon dioxide and elemental aluminium via area mapping using EDS. I've even shown that their correlation is wrong and poorly interpreted in the moderated thread linked in this thread. I highly recommend you read it. Not only that, but I have also demonstrated that their own spectra closely matches Kaolin(ite), that their own SEM photos show the same shape (morphology) and clustering of platelets that is found in natural kaolin.
I put effort into the paper in April/May 2009. I did some heavy analysis that was probably half complete before I gave up. There are so many mistakes and errors in the paper and methodology that it would take me atleast 2-3 weeks to go through it all again and note it down. Again.
