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

[Gamolon]

So you're assuming you know how a thermitic nanocomposite works,

It burns hot, quick, and melts steel. Isn't that what Harrit's paper is all about?

in what thickness,

We know approximately what thickness. It's in Harrit's paper. He found nothing thicker.

Thicknesses vary from
roughly 10 to 100 microns for each layer (red and gray).

where, and what its effect would be on 260-something steel box columns across the several floors where failure initiated.

Exaclty. Thin layer of thermitic material, burns quickly. How is that enough to cut through a thick column?

 

[ergo]

So what is your argument ergo ?

Simply that the nanothermite hypothesis is, imo, a better explanation of the observables than the fire hypothesis. And that arguments from incredulity (and ignorance) have so far done nothing to debunk it.

 

[Gamolon]

If the material Harrit found is indeed engineered thermitic,

What do you mean "if"?

According to Harrit's conclusion:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red
layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC
dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating
nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or
explosive material.

 

[ergo]

Thin layer of thermitic material, burns quickly. How is that enough to cut through a thick column?

That's a totally reasonable question. But given all the other unknowns, it's not one that "debunks" the hypothesis just yet. And to throw comments from the peanut gallery that you know what kind of time frame would be involved for thermitic demolition is just ridiculous.

 

[DGM]

Simply that the nanothermite hypothesis is, imo, a better explanation of the observables than the fire hypothesis. And that arguments from incredulity (and ignorance) have so far done nothing to debunk it.

There is no "nanothermite hypothesis" that I'm aware of. Just "truthers" saying "look, we found nanothermite ".

Do you have a hypothesis we can look at?

 

[Spanx]

Simply that the nanothermite hypothesis is, imo, a better explanation of the observables than the fire hypothesis. And that arguments from incredulity (and ignorance) have so far done nothing to debunk it.

Are you not into explosives like Harrit is ?

 

[Gamolon]

That's a totally reasonable question. But given all the other unknowns, it's not one that "debunks" the hypothesis just yet.

Why not?

Explain to me how you think a thin layer of this "red thermitic" material, which flashes in seconds according to Harrit's paper, has enough energy to sever a column either through explosive force or melting?

Three were no chips found thicker than 10 to 100 microns?

 

[DGM]

Are you not into explosives like Harrit is ?

Didn't Jones even back off and postulate it had to be used as a "fuse" after Frank Greening calculated it wouldn't do squat to the steel?

 

[ergo]

Details would be their downfall. Every truther wants to generalize what happened when asked as it gives them an out, with the ultimate response being, "That's why we need a new investigation!"

And this is a funny comment, considering just a few threads over, bedunkers are complaining that "the details" are irrelevant to an analysis of WTC 7's failure.

 

[Gamolon]

And to throw comments from the peanut gallery that you know what kind of time frame would be involved for thermitic demolition is just ridiculous.

No it is not.

According to your truther faction, in order to get the towers to fall in free fall, all the columns had to be cut simultaneously. There is no way all 260 columns (as you put it) started to be cut 60 to 90 minutes prior to collapse initiation given how fast Harrit's chips flashed. The thermitic substance supposedly applied by someone, had to have gone right before the collapse was initiated.

How you can think that this thermitic material may have been in ignition/burning phase over a 60 to 90 minute time-frame, based on Harrit's ignition time-frame of a chip flashing in seconds, is beyond me.

 

[Spanx]

Didn't Jones even back off and postulate it had to be used as a "fuse" after Frank Greening calculated it wouldn't do squat to the steel?

I'd say an aircraft loaded with fuel would make a pretty good fuse for a fire

 

[Gamolon]

And this is a funny comment, considering just a few threads over, bedunkers are complaining that "the details" are irrelevant to an analysis of WTC 7's failure.

And what detailed analysis have the truthers come up with in over 12 years? You folks tout having engineers and demolition experts championing your cause, yet nobody has even come CLOSE to explaining, in detail, what they think happened. It's all broad generalizations.

 

[JayUtah]

And this is a funny comment, considering just a few threads over, bedunkers are complaining that "the details" are irrelevant to an analysis of WTC 7's failure.

No, the one detail being hyped (nay, beaten like a dead horse) in the WTC 7 thread is irrelevant to the findings that the Truthers are desperately trying to attach it to for the sake of undermining it. And I've written a fairly comprehensive post on exactly how and why it's irrelevant and how the engineers prostituting themselves for the Troofer movement have (probably deliberately) misrepresented the process in order to fool a gullible and/or lay audience into believing them and continuing to donate money to them. If you want to draw that analogy, go there and respond to my analysis.

However, when you propose to determine what actually happened, you need sufficient detail to give evidence a toehold. The real world occurs in detail. The ability to determine what the real world did depends on the ability to identify a suitable concentration of detailed propositions to which evidence can reasonably attach.

But conspiracy theorists always apply a double standard, in at least three ways. One is the burden of proof: the "official story" is automatically suspect while the conspiracy theory merely has not achieve a "not-impossible" status in order to supposedly be taken seriously. Another is in the depth and scope required for the theory: the "official story" has to account for every bit of evidence in order to be believed, but a conspiracy theory is allowed to exist in a general handwaving form that explains nothing. Finally, the smallest unaccounted detail manages to doom the "official story," but no about of failed details, big or small, ever dooms a conspiracy theory because its proponent simply invents more speculation to account for it.

Bottom line is that arbitrarily segregating the "official story" from a conspiracy theory by standard of proof is just a gimmick to hide just how factually bankrupt and non-explanatory any particular conspiracy theory is. In the real world, a competing theory has to meet and exceed both the level of verifiable detail and the explanatory power of the prevailing theory it is meant to supplant.

You can't do that. That's why few care what you have to say.

 

[Africanus]

Yeah, that is a fail. These guys didn't have any problems:

lol, you're taking a tv show, that calls itself "science abuse", seriously?

 

[BasqueArch]

No. You laughed off the idea that it could take 60 - 90 minutes. Why? That estimate is, obviously, based on the time to collapse that we observed. I'm not making any other claims about it. Whereas you clearly have another idea. What is it? At least state it first. I'm very interested in seeing how long it takes for thermitic nanocomposites to cut through 260 or so structural steel box columns. I'm also gobsmacked that you would even have any information on this. So go ahead.

How long does it take for Harrit's thick as a hair fake thermite to cut through structural steel?
How about never.
Is never good for you?

 

[remo]

CreatioNIST science and the great LaLa

Dr Jim, while studying dust samples from the 911 demolitions for at least the fourth time ; avoiding all chips that ignite at 430ºC ejecting high-speed, high temperature iron rich spheres just like those found after thermitic reaction, 'didn't look at the iron rich spheres in his preliminary study'

in favor of primer paints .....

could be the very definition of 'science abuse' .

 

[DGM]

Dr Jim, while studying dust samples from the 911 demolitions for at least the fourth time ; avoiding all chips that ignite at 430ºC ejecting high-speed, high temperature iron rich spheres just like those found after thermitic reaction, 'didn't look at the iron rich spheres in his preliminary study'

in favor of primer paints .....

could be the very definition of 'science abuse' .

Lonely again, looking for someone to "talk" to you.

 

[Justin39640]

*snip*
Last edited by remo; Today at 05:43 PM. Reason: 2 words 2 many..

I counted a whole bunch more than that.

 

[LSSBB]

Dr Jim, while dust samples from the 911 demolitions for at least the fourth time ; avoiding all chips that ignite at 430ºC ejecting high-speed, high temperature iron rich spheres just like those found after thermitic reaction, 'didn't look at the iron rich spheres in his preliminary study'

in favor of primer paints .....

could be the very definition of 'science abuse' .

You got any real science behind those iron spheres, like different populations with comparative statistics on the compositions, with known sources?

 

[beachnut]

Dr Jim, while studying dust samples from the 911 demolitions for at least the fourth time ; .

The real study you failed to refute, but you make up silly baby names like CreatioNIST science. And then you do the great LaLa. What is that, can you explain this with some science? What kind of science is this, "CreatioNIST science and the great LaLa"? Is this what Jones did, fake science, had to publish in a vanity journal because the Jones paper was a fraud?

avoiding all chips that ignite at 430ºC ejecting high-speed, .

What speed exactly is high-speed? Got a number to go with the fake science from the fake paper? Unlike Millette's paper, Jones paper was a fraud, showing the samples did not match thermite in energy, 4 times, no match. What speed was it? Is that in the fake paper by Jones?

high temperature iron rich spheres just like those found after thermitic reaction, 'didn't look at the iron rich spheres in his preliminary study' .

Oops, the same iron spheres found in all sorts of iron bearing things burning in buildings. You can't use the iron spheres as proof Jones' delusion of thermite is real.

in favor of primer paints ......

Amazingly, the spectrum in Jones paper look like clay. Did you fail to look up stuff and took the word of a conspiracy theorists who thinks USA cause the Haiti earthquake? Thermite? Did you look at the spectrum? No

could be the very definition of 'science abuse' .

Yes, Jones paper is 'science abuse', but it only fools those who can't do chemistry, and/or can't comprehend the paper. Even the DSC in Jones paper does not match thermite, and no body in 911 truth can explain what a DSC is used for. Did any 911 truth follower take chemistry?

Jones made up some fantasy about thermite four years after 911.
Millette studied dust from the WTC and found no thermite.
No body can refute Millette's paper, anyone can refute Jones' paper.

911 truth, zero evidence in the 13th year of woo on 911. 911 truth on target for infinity failure. Next time try to bring sceience and comment on Millette's paper, the lala stuff is not science.

Why did Jones make up the thermite delusional fantasy?