Debunk Alert: Experiment to Test for Eutectic Reaction

[Christopher7]

1. Please show me the proof that BYU "Oked" the Jones "paper".

The fact that Dr. Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU, and Daniel Farnsworth were allowed to list their affiliation with BYU in the thermite paper.

It has been over a year now ans there have been no recriminations like the forced retirement of Prof. Jones.

2. Please show me the PROOF of vaporized lead.

R.J. Lee Group report pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust
and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize.
Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point
would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film
deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The
results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited
material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the
materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

 

[Christopher7]

what lurkers? this isn't 2006. There is no one left to convince Chris. Those few who believe the nonsense you do are it...that is all. It is over. You are merely a ball of wool for the amusement of the JREF kittens.

TAM

But TAM, without folks like me, this is just a @#$%^&*. You need an adversary to keep things interesting. ;-)

 

[Dog Town]

But TAM, without folks like me, this is just a circlejerk. You need an adversary to keep things interesting. ;-)

I always thought that was why you leave the safety of a twoofer site to come here. That, or even they humiliate your weak "arguments"!

 

[T.A.M.]

The fact that Dr. Farrer, director of the Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU, and Daniel Farnsworth were allowed to list their affiliation with BYU in the thermite paper.

It has been over a year now ans there have been no recriminations like the forced retirement of Prof. Jones.

R.J. Lee Group report pg 21 [pdf pg 25]
The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust
and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize.
Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point
would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film
deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The
results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited
material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the
materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds,
vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

1. Your above quote/comment implies a possible "tolerance" of their paper. You have shown me no proof of "Ok"ing the paper, which implies they endorsed it.

2. You have provided a quote where they expand upon what vaporizing meant, and what the evidence might show if this were the case. You have not provided any evidence that they found evidence of vaporized lead...sorry, try again.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

But TAM, without folks like me, this is just a @#$%^&*. You need an adversary to keep things interesting. ;-)

agreed. Every kitten needs the ball of the wool in order to remain amused.

TAM

 

[lapman]

They are qualified to study the red/gray chips and determine what they are.

Source showing that they have these specific qualifications?

Do you see the conundrum here? She is quite qualified to understand the research done by Prof. Harrit et al. Specific expertise in nano-thermite is not required to understand the photographs and chemical analysis of the nano-thermite found in the WTC dust..

In order to do that, they have to compare it to actual nano-thermite, which they do not. BTW, at least specific knowledge of nano-thermite is requires which none of the authors posses, according to your standards.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

IYO. You are not qualified to second guess Neils Harrit and Dr. Farrer or the thermite paper.

I'm not second guessing Harrit and Jones, I am merely pointing out that their paper was never peer reviewed.

 

[Christopher7]

1. Your above quote/comment implies a possible "tolerance" of their paper. You have shown me no proof of "Ok"ing the paper, which implies they endorsed it.

I don't mean to imply that BYU endorses the thermite paper, only that they know of it, do not object to it, and OK'd Dr. Farrer and Daniel Farnsworth to list their affiliation with BYU.

You have provided a quote where they expand upon what vaporizing meant, and what the evidence might show if this were the case. You have not provided any evidence that they found evidence of vaporized lead...sorry, try again.

pg 21 continues:
A variety of analytical techniques were applied to characterize the surface
chemistry of WTC materials. These analytical techniques included scanning
electron microscopy/energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDS), X-ray
microprobe, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). The SEM and
microprobe techniques provided details that sparked interest in a closer look
at the surface characteristics. XPS is a surface analysis technique that not
only can detect most of the elements of the periodic table, but can also
determine their oxidation state or binding energy. Thus XPS can provide
chemical species information for elements. XPS is capable of analyzing
components in the top 100 angstroms of surface. Because of the sensitivity to
surface components, XPS is highly useful in the characterization of chemistry
of the surface of the dust particles.

The XPS results indicate the presence of a thin contaminating film or coating
associated with the surface of particles. These surface species could be a
significant factor affecting the toxicity of the WTC Dust if the coatings on
particles and fibers are composed of hazardous substances. The coatings
vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed sub-
micron particles. The particles and coatings have been detected by low
accelerating voltage back-scattered electron imaging, X-ray microprobe
analysis, and high resolution XPS. For example, lead peaks from the surface
of mineral wool were identified by XPS. The high-resolution, narrow-range
XPS scan (Figure 25) led to the identification of two lead peaks representing
lead oxide or lead sulfate. The presence of lead oxides on the surface of
mineral wool indicates the exposure of high temperatures at which lead
would have undergone vaporization, oxidation, and condensation on the
surface of mineral wool. In addition to the trace amounts of lead, Table 2
indicates the presence of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, sodium, silicon, sulfur,
chlorine and calcium on the surface of the mineral wool.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Bentham publishes over 100 journals. Is the Editor-in-Chief consulted on every article?

Yes, it's part of the peer-review process. Do you not understand how it works?

 

[Christopher7]

I'm not second guessing Harrit and Jones, I am merely pointing out that their paper was never peer reviewed.

Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

 

[triforcharity]

Jon Cole put "The sulfur is from the drywall" disinformation to rest. There is no precedent or scientific evidence to support that ridiculous hypothesis. Drywall is used for fireproofing. The claim that the sulfur in drywall was released from its chemical bonds in the fire is baseless and false.

SOurce?

 

[Christopher7]

Yes, it's part of the peer-review process. Do you not understand how it works?

I doubt the editor-in-chief reads every article and OK's it. ;-)

Please show the source your assertion that the editor-in-chief reads and OK's every article.

 

[Christopher7]

SOurce?

There is no source to back up the suggestion that the elemental sulfer in drywall could be released in a fire.

 

[triforcharity]

That is entirely different than questioning the government. If we cannot question the OCT without fear of loosing our job then we do not have freedom of speech.

Debris pile fires are oxygen starved and cannot burn anywhere near hot enough to melt iron or steel.
"Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC[FONT=&quot] event, producing spherical metallic particles."[/FONT]

Site and source please. Thanks!!

 

[T.A.M.]

Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

If by that you mean they sent it in for review, waited a long time, and then it was finally published.

Please, provide evidence that the review of their paper was lengthy. See unless you were one of the reviewers, you would not have access or knowledge of what the reviewers did or didnt do.

There is, however, cirCumstantial evidence that it was not. Most glaring evidence of this is that the paper was published despite many, many methodological errors, and poor, poor study design and process.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

Actually, it was. You will not accept that and that's OK. ;-)

There was a lengthy review/edit process.

Really? Where? From Bentham? The Pay-To-Publish sham journal?

LOL!! No, their review process consisted of "Did the check clear?"

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Name one and their qualifications.

Sorry, but it's more fun to watch you demonstrate your investigative skills by failing to identify any.

Perhaps English is not your first language. The sentence is quite clear. Lead was vaporized. This does not mean that it was heated a little bit and put off vapors, it means lead was completely vaporized.

That is your interpretation. On the other hand, your remark about my first language casts doubt upon your ability to interpret what you read.

To be fair, I should consider the possibility that your remarks were out of character, rare mistakes, minor blemishes marring a generally admirable record...checking...chuckling...no, we can cross that off.

Bentham publishes over 100 journals. Is the Editor-in-Chief consulted on every article?

Apparently not.


Your question reveals ignorance of Bentham's editorial structure, Pileni's position within that structure, and the reasons she gave for resigning as editor-in-chief of the specific journal that published the paper in question.

 

[T.A.M.]

Interesting, Chris, that the same group, R.J. Lee group, also wrote this little article,

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Metals and Organics.Final.121503.pdf

Where in the 2nd last paragraph of page 2, they say,

This WTC Dust evaluation represents the most extensive microscopic investigation related to WTC Dust ever performed. Over 400,000 particles were classified using SEM techniques with approximately 80,000 images collected.

Amazingly, after identifying and classifying over 400,000 particles, not a single one identified as THERMITE/MATE.

I guess if was particle 400,001...right?

TAM

 

[Christopher7]

Please, provide evidence that the review of their paper was lengthy. See unless you were one of the reviewers, you would not have access or knowledge of what the reviewers did or didnt do.

A reasonable question. I have read about this process. The info is probably at their website. I'll check it out.

There is, however, cirCumstantial evidence that it was not. Most glaring evidence of this is that the paper was published despite many, many methodological errors, and poor, poor study design and process.

Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant.

 

[lapman]

Unreasonable assumptions. The paper was very professional, your opinion is not surprising or relevant.

You are not qualified to make this assertion.