WTC Dust Study Feb 29, 2012 by Dr. James Millette

Miragememories said:
http://www.wissenschaft-aktuell.de/artikel/Nano_Bomben_als_Satelliten_Antrieb1771015588124.html

Google Translated Extracts

Recently published in December 7, 2011




Yes it is startling, and it is not a study of DNA.

It does appear to use DNA-directed assembly to produce the 'high energy nanocomposites', also referred to as 'nanothermite' in the Report.

The Bentham 2009 Report that was authored by Dr. Harrit et al, describes the finding of a nanothermitic substance. in all their dust samples the nanothermite material they described had an ignition temperature always around 430C.

The Science Journal Report that I referred to described the testing of a nano material substance called nanothermite.

It also found that it was very modifiable between 400C and 500C, allowing for consistent, controllable ignition.

And it goes on to describe the energy spike and explosive potential of the substance.

Yes. I think it is quite related, and a very recent finding.

MM
Click to expand...

Where did Harrit identify Copper in his article?
 
ergo said:
He doesn't. Why do you ask? Were you not aware of the many different potentials for chemical compositions in nanothermites?
Click to expand...

Harrit claims that his "thermite" is made up of iron oxide and aluminum, not of copper oxide. So there is no link between Harrit's and Severac's article.
 
The point you're probably trying to make is that some compositions are more powerful than others, in nanothermite formulations. Yes that's true. And?
 
I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.

That part isn't hard for me. ;)

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rule 10.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ergo said:
I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.

That part isn't hard for me. ;)
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...
Who would this be? Do you have a link to this verification?

BTW: Tony Szamboti knows my real name. I'm not really that anonymous if you spent a little time figuring out who I am.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Love it. Either MM's google-fu is fubared or he's linked to something that has zero relevance to Harrit's thermite paper because he doesn't know what he's on about. Ergo's piled in because he doesn't understand the difference between Fe and Cu. Not surprising really, about par for the course for someone who doesn't understand

Fe2O3 + Al = Fe + Al2O3 (Ergo - can you balance that equation for us?)

A source of never ending amusement.
 
Sunstealer said:
Love it. Either MM's google-fu is fubared or he's linked to something that has zero relevance to Harrit's thermite paper because he doesn't know what he's on about. Ergo's piled in because he doesn't understand the difference between Fe and Cu. Not surprising really, about par for the course for someone who doesn't understand

Fe2O3 + Al = Fe + Al2O3 (Ergo - can you balance that equation for us?)

A source of never ending amusement.
Click to expand...

got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test? millette heated his to 400C and in the ash found kaolin plates. if one does think that jones' chips are laclede, how does the silicon from the kaolin form into silicon rich microspheres which appeared "transparent or translucent when viewed with white light" according to the bentham paper????
 
DGM said:
Why don't you trust Harrits data?
Click to expand...

ergo said:
I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.

That part isn't hard for me. ;)
Click to expand...

DGM said:
Who would this be? Do you have a link to this verification?
Click to expand...

I'm shocked that ergo has yet to identify this "recognized expert in nanochemistry" that has verified Harrit's data.

(actually I'm not. I'm sure he hoped no one would question him and he would somehow score a point).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Senenmut said:
got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test?
Click to expand...

There is no proof for this claim in Harrit's paper, only the assertion that such microspheres were built. The actual composition of these microspheres is unknown.
 
Africanus said:
There is no proof for this claim in Harrit's paper, only the assertion that such microspheres were built. The actual composition of these microspheres is unknown.
Click to expand...

fe -nope
al- nope
o- nope
c- maybe its a diamond!!!!!!
si- ? duh
 
ergo said:
I can't independently evaluate Harrit's data. What I do trust is that a recognized expert in nanochemistry is a little better equipped to interpret his data than a handful of anonymous internet debunkers who are not recognized experts in the subject, who have published nothing relevant on the subject, who can't even get access to a lab, and who are apparently too chicken**** to use their real names.
Edited by jhunter1163: 
Moderated content removed.
Click to expand...
You're surely referring to Marie-Paule Pileni, the then editor-in-chief of Bentham's TOCPJ who resigned as a result of the publication, who was "puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal" and who said that it "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication".

You mean her, right? She's a recognized expert in nanochemistry at the University Pierre & Marie Curie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Senenmut said:
got a question for ya. some people think that laclede is the primer paint that jones and crew tested. how do you think those silicon rich microspheres were formed when they did the dsc test? millette heated his to 400C and in the ash found kaolin plates. if one does think that jones' chips are laclede, how does the silicon from the kaolin form into silicon rich microspheres which appeared "transparent or translucent when viewed with white light" according to the bentham paper????
Click to expand...

Your premise is FALSE.

We don't claim that they tested LaClede primer in the DSC.
We claim that the material tested in the DSC is wholly unknown, because Harrit e.al. were so stupid as to not characterize the specimens or tell us about it. Consequently, we can't fully explain individual observations.

We know from Harrit e.al. that they had at least six different kinds of red-gray chips in their bags of dust (five characterized by different elemental compositions of the red layer, one characterized by a differing gray layer material). One of these six kinds is most likely LaClede primer, another is most likely Tnemec 99, and the others we can't know.

So which kind or kinds were tested in the DSC? Impossible to tell (except one kind that is neither LaClede nor Tnemec is characterized by its Ti-content in post-DSC analysis, Fig. 25; there's no Ti in LaClede (Fig 7) nor in Tnemec (Fig 14). But it is unclear whether this Ti-chip was one of the four plotted in Fig 19).

Please bug Jeff Farrer, who carried out these tests, if you want to go into detail.
 
pgimeno said:
You're surely referring to Marie-Paule Pileni, the then editor-in-chief of Bentham's TOCPJ who resigned as a result of the publication, who was "puzzled that the article on dust analysis following the terror attack on the U.S. on 11 September 2001 could at all have found its way to the Open Chemical Physics Journal" and who said that it "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication".

You mean her, right? She's a recognized expert in nanochemistry at the University Pierre & Marie Curie.
Click to expand...

. .

Neils Harrit: Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal said:
Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized [the paper], but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to acknowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career...

Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation---an acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
No, it's Harrit's response. I'm merely citing the title there so people can easily google it.

ETA: but I will correct it.
 
ergo said:
. .
Click to expand...

So nothing to say about the comment of that nanotechnology expert that the article "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication" besides that false choice fallacy? Because given the numerous methodological errors that have been repeatedly exposed in the paper (even by Millette), it certainly isn't the case that "its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged". That Harrit sees no other option speaks very badly of him, his capacity for self-criticism and his arrogance.
 
Last edited:
pgimeno said:
So nothing to say about the comment of that nanotechnology expert that the article "has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication" besides that false choice fallacy? Because given the numerous methodological errors that have been repeatedly exposed in the paper (even by Millette), it certainly isn't the case that "its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged".
Click to expand...

I'd need to see the quote in full. And of course there's a political viewpoint behind its publication. Do you think research is a politically neutral activity? This research was undertaken at their own expense by concerned scientists.

No published chemist using their real name has identified methodological errors in that paper. But please provide a citation if I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom