• 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.

Truther responses to Millette WTC Dust paper

Jetblast said:
You-Tube:


' 9/11 WTC-chips are not paint and produce a thermite reaction: '



Harrit says the chips do not contain zinc and therefore cannot be paint chips.


He also says soaking in MethylEthylKetone separates the silicon from the aluminum showing they can't exist in a bound state and therefore can't be kaolin.


Why doesn't someone just show a microscopic comparison of solgel thermite and WTC primer paint?
Click to expand...
See how easy it is to gish gallop? You got that skill down. Can you source any of your claims? No. Millette can't find thermite, jets aircraft were used to damage the WTC, not thermite. It is kind of simple, reality.

Thermite is a fantasy of Jones. He made it up out of thin air, then he does a paper which shows he has no thermite, and says it it thermite. He fooled you because you did not read the paper and see he was spreading woo. Anyone who can read for comprehension can see the paper does not prove there was thermite.

The DSC does not match thermite. The energy in all four samples tested do not match each other, and don't match thermite.

BINGO, 911 truth failed to read the paper, and they are fooled by liars in 911 truth. Then there is a gish gallop from zinc to BS, as 911 truth can't support thermite with evidence.

Jones says the thermite was in the ceiling tiles, a million ceiling tiles. This is funny when the fires in the WTC had more energy than 2,700 TONS of thermite. 911 truth never does the math, never does the fire science, why is that?

Fires in the WTC from office fires alone more heat energy than 2,700 Tons of Thermite.

911 truth can't comprehend fire, or steel, so they make up lies for those who are gullible and refuse to think for themselves.

Jones is nuts on 911. Did you read the paper? Why do all the samples not match thermite in energy. It is sad, burring plastic and wood have more heat energy than thermite. Darn, Jones lost this one, unlike your big win over on 800.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be an impasse here. Harrit said MethylEthylKetone soaking showed the silicon separated from the aluminum so therefore the two elements were not chemically bound and therefore couldn't be Kaolin.

A microscopic study of the chips is called for here.
 
Jetblast said:
There seems to be an impasse here. Harrit said MethylEthylKetone soaking showed the silicon separated from the aluminum so therefore the two elements were not chemically bound and therefore couldn't be Kaolin.

A microscopic study of the chips is called for here.
Click to expand...

Too bad he didn't actually show this. :rolleyes:

Before asking for a new study, shouldn't we ask why one would be needed?

There's zero reason to believe "thermite" had anything to do with this. Do you believe a paint layer of "thermite" would do anything to these buildings? No one else does.
 
DGM said:
...Before asking for a new study, shouldn't we ask why one would be needed?
Click to expand...
That is the stupidity of this entire red herring topic:

1) it is of zero relevance to WTC 9/11 collapse. The only possible link to WTC 9/11 would be if it had been used in CD. There was no CD therefore it wasn't used in CD. Why the simplicity of that situation gets overlooked could be a topic in it's own right. And BTW that is the argument the right way around. Anyone who cannot see that should go back and review the basics of procedural logic for these discussions.

2) It is possibly of some interest to scientists. But why it it should merit allocation of resources over research into things which have potential benefit....

3) Historically the only reason thermXte is under current discussion is that S Jones used it in a "Brand Image Boosting" marketing strategy.
 
Here's a "Truther Response" to the original 2009 thermitic paper from Jim Fetzer: “Nanothermite… has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.” I showed that to someone aligned with Steven Jones et al, and he said that quoting Fetzer undermines my credibility with the Jones crowd. But I think Fetzer is correct in this case. Anyone care to confirm?
 
Last edited:
chrismohr said:
Here's a "Truther Response" to the original 2009 thermitic paper from Jim Fetzer: “Nanothermite… has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.” I showed that to someone aligned with Steven Jones et al, and he said that quoting Fetzer undermines my credibility with the Jones crowd. But I think Fetzer is correct in this case. Anyone care to confirm?
Click to expand...

Whether correct or not (and I doubt Fetzer can produce a mathematical or engineering calculation...no I KNOW he can't)... I would never quote Fetzer for anything. He's really been discredited and he seems to be a bit crazy. But he's well spoken and fools people.
 
chrismohr said:
Here's a "Truther Response" to the original 2009 thermitic paper from Jim Fetzer: “Nanothermite… has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.” I showed that to someone aligned with Steven Jones et al, and he said that quoting Fetzer undermines my credibility with the Jones crowd. But I think Fetzer is correct in this case. Anyone care to confirm?
Click to expand...

What's important in high explosives isn't so much the amount of energy released; rather, the suddenness of decomposition and the velocity of the resulting blast wave. You actually get more energy released by burning TNT in air than be detonating it. But professionals prefer to employ TNT in the detonation mode.

OTOH, thermite, "nano" or otherwise, is not an explosive at all. You can get an explosion by placing thermite atop ice, causing a steam explosion, but this doesn't seem very practical, except for Mythbusters entertainment.
 
chrismohr said:
... But I think Fetzer is correct in this case. Anyone care to confirm?
Click to expand...
I'll leave the technical issue re Nanothermite to others,
BUT
I can thoroughly endorse the process problem you will face if you quote a Truther on the occasions they get something right.

Truthers seem to hold to the view that everything a debunker says is false;
Conversely Debunkers seem to hold to "Everything a truther says is false".

Simple - saves a lot of reading and thinking. One of our regulars has made an art form of posting shotgun blast responses which bear little relation to what has been said. The opponent is a truther so why should counter attacks be relevant or reasoned.

Confront them - either "side' - with the latest Szamboti co-authored paper which the "truther" - Tony - got a few things right - mainstream "our side" points - and both sides lose the plot. Simply cannot compute.... well not so simply actually

If you have a quiet half hour read through the "Tony's Paper" thread and marvel at who is coming from what direction. It is a classic. Truthers taking the debunker side, debunkers taking the truther side. One totally confused troll in later posts not knowing which side is which. And another troll showing insight and comprehension of what is happening.

And nearly all of them seem unaware of the twisted reality.
 
beachnut said:
Thermite is a fantasy of Jones. He made it up out of thin air, then he does a paper which shows he has no thermite, and says it it thermite. He fooled you because you did not read the paper and see he was spreading woo. Anyone who can read for comprehension can see the paper does not prove there was thermite.
Click to expand...
^This. As you said, he plucked the term out of thin air because it sounded "sciencey." Then he found out it wasn't actually an explosive and now he's stuck with it. Even with the "nano-thermite" woo upgrade, it's a millstone around his neck.

Jones says the thermite was in the ceiling tiles, a million ceiling tiles. This is funny when the fires in the WTC had more energy than 2,700 TONS of thermite. 911 truth never does the math, never does the fire science, why is that?

Fires in the WTC from office fires alone more heat energy than 2,700 Tons of Thermite.
Click to expand...
Even taking them at face value, the Truthers' story holds no water.

A thin paint layer of "uber-nano-thermite" was sprayed on every WTC girder - possibly during construction 35 years earlier. Or maybe all the ceiling tiles were thermite (because of course a 24" dead space between them and the ceiling/floor wouldn't matter at all). Then, after the planes crashed and an hour of conflagration, the thermite detonated and simultaneously cut every girder. Without a hitch. No thermite ignited prematurely from the crash or fire. Meanwhile, the powerful uber explosive thermite "turned the building into dust" and threw building parts across the street.

Purely out of coincidence, none of the intact girders recovered from the WTC rubble had any signs of thermite paint.
:rolleyes:
 
chrismohr said:
Here's a "Truther Response" to the original 2009 thermitic paper from Jim Fetzer: “Nanothermite… has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.” I showed that to someone aligned with Steven Jones et al, and he said that quoting Fetzer undermines my credibility with the Jones crowd. But I think Fetzer is correct in this case. Anyone care to confirm?
Click to expand...
I think the highlighted word is incorrect.

I'm too lazy to check the accuracy of the quantified part ("millions of cubic yards of very fine dust") but consider the possibility that it's an exaggeration.
 
chrismohr said:
Here's a "Truther Response" to the original 2009 thermitic paper from Jim Fetzer: “Nanothermite… has less than 13% the power of TNT and cannot have been the source of the energy that blew these buildings apart and converted most of them into millions of cubic yards of very fine dust.” I showed that to someone aligned with Steven Jones et al, and he said that quoting Fetzer undermines my credibility with the Jones crowd. But I think Fetzer is correct in this case. Anyone care to confirm?
Click to expand...
Fetzer has idiotic ideas about 911, using his work against 911 truth is not a good idea. Fetzer has no rational claims on 911.
TNT and thermite are close in energy. Fetzer is a BS artist.

TNT - 4.6 MJ/kg
Thermite - 4 MJ/kg

Butter 28.6 MJ/kg
Sugar 16 MJ/kg
Jet fuel (jeta) 42.8 MJ/kg,
chocolate chip cookies 21 MJ/kg

Fetzer is nuts on 911. Steer clear.

Talking about BS, Fetzer has a greater energy density than TNT
BS (aka Dry cow dung) - 15.5 MJ/kg

Fetzer's BS has more energy than thermite.
 
beachnut said:
Fetzer has idiotic ideas about 911, using his work against 911 truth is not a good idea. Fetzer has no rational claims on 911.
TNT and thermite are close in energy. Fetzer is a BS artist.

TNT - 4.6 MJ/kg
Thermite - 4 MJ/kg

Butter 28.6 MJ/kg
Sugar 16 MJ/kg
Jet fuel (jeta) 42.8 MJ/kg,
chocolate chip cookies 21 MJ/kg

Fetzer is nuts on 911. Steer clear.

Talking about BS, Fetzer has a greater energy density than TNT
BS (aka Dry cow dung) - 15.5 MJ/kg

Fetzer's BS has more energy than thermite.
Click to expand...

Fetzer's point is that Judy Wood is correct.
 
Originally Posted by beachnut
Fetzer has idiotic ideas about 911, using his work against 911 truth is not a good idea. Fetzer has no rational claims on 911.
TNT and thermite are close in energy. Fetzer is a BS artist.

TNT - 4.6 MJ/kg
Thermite - 4 MJ/kg

Butter 28.6 MJ/kg
Sugar 16 MJ/kg
Jet fuel (jeta) 42.8 MJ/kg,
chocolate chip cookies 21 MJ/kg

Fetzer is nuts on 911. Steer clear.

Talking about BS, Fetzer has a greater energy density than TNT
BS (aka Dry cow dung) - 15.5 MJ/kg

Fetzer's BS has more energy than thermite.
Click to expand...


Scott Sommers said:
Fetzer's point is that Judy Wood is correct.
Click to expand...

The various factions within Trutherdom aren't bad at taking apart the BS of other factions. Steven Jones's associate Greg Jenkins really took Wood apart in an interview.

The problem for the truther factions is that they're all stuffed with meadow muffins! :D

Actually, I think that Wood and Fetzer will be around longer than the nanothermiters because the Death Ray From Outer Space trope actually IS so loony. :wackygoofy: It's not like Truthers are drawn by scientific and engineering arguments. They do use pseudoscientific arguments but they come from loonies like Wood, or charlatans like Jones.

Of no particular importance, just an interesting fact, you actually get more energy by burning TNT in air than by detonating it. TNT explosions are noticeably sooty as its violent decomposition produces much carbon.

Burning that carbon to CO2 produces ~0.4 MJ per every 12 grams of carbon.
 
Last edited:
Scott Sommers said:
Fetzer's point is that Judy Wood is correct.
Click to expand...

From what I understand Jim and Judy are having a Hissyfit Truther Fight.

This was posted over at ATS.



Here is Jim Fetzer's announcement about this in his newsletter to warn everyone.

Professor Jim Fetzer:

"All
We have been hit with a series of posts extolling the virtues of Judy Wood but using my wife’s name as the email handle. This is a perfect example of the kind of shabby attack that has come from Judy Wood and the members of her cult. The point that you cannot solve a crime if you do not know what crime was committed–consider the police looking for suspect without knowing how a decedent died!–is itself impeccable. But the implication that we have not addressed HOW IT WAS DONE is obviously and completely absurd.

I know Judy very well and this post and the others–there are at least FIVE using my wife’s name–appears to me to have been written by JUDY WOOD HERSELF. She is very good at congratulating herself for her brilliance. But she had none nothing at all to explain away the USGS dust evidence, which reveals that this was a nuclear event. WE HAVE EXPLAINED HOW IT WAS DONE AND WHY THE NUCLEAR DEVICES MUST HAVE COME FROM ISRAEL. In all the time I have know her, she has never addressed WHO DID IT!

Personally, I find her actions and those of the members of her cult to be disgusting. And the term fits: they have core dogmas (DEWs did it!), a sacred text (WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?), a mystical leader (Judy Wood herself), and a praetorian guard (which viciously attacks anyone who would suggest that she might be wrong, even slightly). So when I posted my 5-star review of her work, I mentioned in passing that, while she had ruled out maxi nukes, she had not actually excluded mini or micro nukes.

Lest there be any doubt . . . .

For that, MY REVIEW has been subjected to MORE THAN 4,000 VERY NASTY ATTACKS from Andrew Johnson and Judy herself, not to mention lesser minions, some of whom actually use their real names. I posted the original BEFORE The Vancouver Hearings and, AFTER being besieged by some 2,000 attacks at the time, revised it and downgraded it to a 3-star review. This is how she, who claims to be a scientist, responds to evidence that disproves her theory–by attacking me again and again and again.

I am all for “free energy”, but Judy turns out to be a flake. She insists that SHE DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY when the cover of her book proclaims, “EVIDENCE OF THE USE OF FREE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ON 9/11″, as though that did not imply that her theory IS that free energy technology was used on 9/11. She also maintains the absurd position that “Empirical evidence is the truth that theory must mimic”, which is simply absurd. Empirical evidence consists of physical things (such as steel beams, dead bodies and dust samples), which are not the sort of things that CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE. So EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE CANNOT BE ANY KIND OF TRUTH, much less THAT THEORY MUST MIMIC. If a theory (which consists of statements or propositions which CAN BE TRUE OR FALSE) were to “mimic” empirical evidence, since mimicry is a form of imitation or replication, THAT WOULD ONLY BE MORE EVIDENCE!

She has repeatedly claimed that she DOES NOT HAVE A THEORY, but without a theory, she can’t explain anything. And instead of sucking it up and attempting to explain away the USGS dust samples, here she is reaffirming a position we have already shown to be false (or at least hopelessly inadequate), BECAUSE SHE CANNOT COPE WITH THE USGS dust samples. And her definition of DEWs as forms of energy that go far beyond conventional and can be directed APPLIES TO MICRO OR MINI NUKES, which a forms of energy that go far beyond conventional and can be directed, as we have explained: This appears to have been done using shaped neutron bombs that can be directed upward! So given her vague definition of “DEWs”, OUR THEORY THAT IT WAS DONE USING SHAPED MICRO AND MINI NEUTRON BOMBS, STRICTLY SPEAKING, MEANS THAT IT WAS DONE USING DEWS, WHEN YOU CONSIDER HER DEFINITION. The situation is absurd.

Not only that, but in addition to featuring her 15 TIMES on my radio programs when no one had ever heard of her and publishing a chapter by her in the first book from Scholars, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY, I gave her an unprecedented THREE HOURS TO SPEAK during the Madison conference on “The Science and Politics of 9/11″. She drove from South Carolina to get here and brought along her two cats. She asked my wife to look after them, which was unexpected but which she graciously did (even though, at that time, we had three cats of our own). For the kindness we have extended to Judy Wood and for the generous fashion in which I have promoted her work in the past, she now abuses my wife by using her name as a false handle to attack me. This woman is not only a paragon of ingratitude but appears to me to display the symptoms of someone who is profoundly sick, not mentally well and even sadistic.

Jim

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D."

Fetzer has a lot more to say about Dr. Wood. Apparently, they go way back and have a long history together. To listen to what he says about her, and the drama that occurred between them, see his radio podcast archive here:

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com
Click to expand...


http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread272434/pg2#pid17026461
 
beachnut said:
Fetzer has idiotic ideas about 911, using his work against 911 truth is not a good idea. Fetzer has no rational claims on 911.
TNT and thermite are close in energy. Fetzer is a BS artist.

TNT - 4.6 MJ/kg
Thermite - 4 MJ/kg

Butter 28.6 MJ/kg
Sugar 16 MJ/kg
Jet fuel (jeta) 42.8 MJ/kg,
chocolate chip cookies 21 MJ/kg

Fetzer is nuts on 911. Steer clear.

Talking about BS, Fetzer has a greater energy density than TNT
BS (aka Dry cow dung) - 15.5 MJ/kg

Fetzer's BS has more energy than thermite.
Click to expand...
Beachnut, I am assuming your figures are real. It was either you or TFK who once gave me the joules estimates for wood and gasoline, which would be extremely helpful for my upcoming presentation (and I hope I don't have to plow through tens of thousands of posts to resurrect this!). Can you toss those my way as well? Is your joules estimate for bs real? What a hoot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom