Questions about nano-thermite

[leftysergeant]

This material was intended for use here on Earth, where we have oxygen in our atmosphere, so of course we could determine how this material would have reacted inside the buildings.

And we bloody well expect the jackanapes who claims that the chips are thermite to demonstrate that they have at least one property that paint does not have. One property that we know that thermite hass that paint does not is that it will burn in a vacuum or in pure nitrogen. Now prove that Chucklenuts' chips are not paint or give it up.

You can't "debunk" reality. You can wish it wasn't the case that the World Trade Center was demolished by explosives inside, but that won't change the reality. Stop running away from this information like all those people ran from the pyroclastic cloud (WTF? from a spontaneous building collapse we get a pyroclastic cloud???)

What evil djinn told you that there was a pyroclastic cloud? All anybody has shown us in videos is a turbidity flow.

I've shown the chemical abundances in this "kaolinite" and for thermiate, the "chips" from the World Trade Center dust have the identical chemical signature of thermite, not "kaolinite". It is thermite, not "kaolinite".

We are talking about paint that contains kaolinite. There is a difference.

Is it as high as the density of your unsupported and repeated libelous claims about me?

Better learn what "libel" is. Truth is an infalible defense against a charge of libel.

You have spent most of your post here talking about me, saying nothing about the subject at hand. That's considered spam as well as a violation of the rules as your comments skirt closer and closer to the border of insulting me directly.

When you insist on claiming in spite of evidence to the contrary that paint is thermite, we begin to run out of polite ways to tell you what an utter ass you are making of yourself. Stop whining.

 

[cev08241971]

Well, I would say more than none, given the fact that Bentham is a sham journal.

The supposition that Bentham operates any differently than any other publication house publishing "peer reviewed" journals is unsupported by evidence. Other "reputable" publications are equally worthless and incapable of detecting fraud and abuse, as has been demonstrated numerous times by many avenues.

See a previous post of mine where I deconstruct this "sham" model of Bentham. It's no more a "sham" than any other "peer reviewed" publications.

 

[triforcharity]

I really think you should review the membership agreement. I'll quote it for you:
"Truth is not necessarily a defence against a breach of Rule 0 or Rule 12, for example a Member may well be proven to have lied, but that does not mean it is civil and polite to call them a liar in every subsequent response to them, especially in responses not directly related to their original lie."

Even if you were right, which you're not, you're still wrong. Pay more attention to the rules you've agreed to follow.

No, he pointed out that what you posted was a lie. Dig difference

I understand this is your belief. Fortunately for the rest of us, your beliefs can not overturn reality.

Maybe you can point us to someone who is NOT a truther, and has studied the WTc dust, and confirmed the presence of nano-therm*te.

Apparently you're now deliberately ignoring the paper by Haritt et al, choosing to characterize Bentham Science Publications as a "crank" outfit and a "scam".

Most people (myself included) in the scientific community, consider Bentham Open a sham journal.

This might surprise you, but Jones didn't have exclusive access to dust from the World Trade Center demolition. There were literally hundreds of tons of it spread all over New York City.

Yep.

Are you deliberately trying to be insulting or is it accidental? I'll thank you to keep your opinions about me to yourself. If you can't, save it for the next time your mother comes down to the basement to do your laundry.

You owe me an irony meter. BTW, this would be a violation of the MA. Just FYI.

Again you're violating the rules by suggesting I'm lying. You may disagree with what I've said, but that does not give you the right to violate the membership agreement governing use of this web site. You will remain civil when you discuss this with me or there will surely be consequences. For starters you can stop saying that I (or anyone) is "lying", just because you disagree with them. Even if you could somehow prove somebody was "lying", it's still a violation of the rules to call somebody a liar (even by implication). I've asked you twice now to stop this kind of behaviour. All it does is inflame the discussion and raise the emotional temperature of the thread. Kindly knock it off. (It's worth noting this behaviour of yours is widely considered to be trolling.)

He did not call you a liar. He attacked your argument, not you. Stop trying to think you know the rules here newguy.

I realize this is your belief, but your belief isn't supported by any verifiable science. And you want it both ways. You say it's impossible to verify Jones' claims without his samples, yet you say his claims can be falsified without his samples. Make up your mind. Or better yet stay out of the way and let the scientists handle this one.

LOL! You don't know who R.Mackey is, do you?

What you do in your free time is up to you. If you want to chase "Bigfoot", go ahead. I'd say it's time relatively well spent, because you sure are wasting your time (and mine) here.

You are free to leave. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you.

 

[dtugg]

And how is this in any way different than any other published journals? it isn't. Fortunately peer review is not part of the scientific method, and therefore not part of science, otherwise we might have to take all of it seriously. Deliberate fraud like that described in this "experiment" is extremely difficult to combat. Deliberate fraud carried out against Bentham also in no way casts Bentham in a poor light.

It does when they agree to publish a completely nonsensical computer-generated "paper." (Upon receipt of $800, of course).

The reviewer that accepted the fraudulent paper apparently didn't have complete command of English, making the ruse (FRAUD) that much easier to perpetrate.

So they have reviewers for a "journal" that is published in English who can't even read English. That is your excuse. Wow

Somebody is in denial.

 

[twinstead]

Another cult member pretending he's in the majority. Nice.

 

[dtugg]

Hey twoofer, how come your Gods Harrit, Jones, et. al. didn't see if their "nanotherm*te" would burn in an inert atmosphere? I am not a genius scientist like you or them, but this seems like a really obvious thing to do in order to test for thermite. It is almost as if they deliberately failed to do it because they knew nothing would happen.

 

[triforcharity]

I don't find this claim credible in the slightest. I practice the scientific method, so I am a scientist, and I just don't see the same in you. I'm not convinced you even understand the scientific method. If you do, please explain it to me so I know we're using the same operational definition.

Is this a GD stundie?!?!?! LOL!!

You......lecturing R.Mackey on SCIENCE!??!?!? LOL!! Keep going kid. this is comedy GOLD!!!

 

[D'rok]

Ahem!

You're citing Jones' own paper as independent verification of Jones' research?

This has got to be a joke.

Please provide an actual example of the independent verification that you claim exists in such abundance.

Just to remind you of what you have claimed:

There has already been an abundance of independent analysis of this material.

...

To suggest that Jones' research itself hasn't been reviewed by independent researchers is comical.

...

Many researchers have repeated this research with other samples of World Trade Center dust and arrived at identical conclusions...independently.

...

His samples aren't necessary for independent review of the procedures and the data. Such independent replication of this research has already taken place.

Please show some intellectual honesty and either retract this obviously false claim or show where the independent replication of Jones' results has taken place.

 

[triforcharity]

I've already cited the research by Haritt {sic}et al.

You mean the paper written by Harrit et. al. that includes JONES?? You mean that one?!!?!?!


LOL!! They are one in the same.

" Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
"
You mean those guys?

 

[cev08241971]

And we bloody well expect the jackanapes who claims that the chips are thermite to demonstrate that they have at least one property that paint does not have.

I'm going to ignore your insult (not respond directly), though I've reported it. I've given you properties that this nanothermate from the World Trade Center dust has that "paint" does not. It's explosive. it has a very high energy density. It has a different chemical signature than the (one) alternative proposed ("kaolinite"). The unreacted nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust is not "paint chips", it's an explosive pyrotechnic.

One property that we know that thermite hass that paint does not is that it will burn in a vacuum or in pure nitrogen.

This may or may not be true, I can't say. We know that it oxidizes explosively when heated. Paint doesn't do that.

Now prove that Chucklenuts' chips are not paint or give it up.

We don't have to prove that the nanothermate found in the World Trade Center dust is not paint chips, we've already demonstrated that it can only be nanothermate (and sourced only from DoD contractors). The deed is done, we don't have to sweat this any more, it's nanothermate, not paint chips.

What evil djinn told you that there was a pyroclastic cloud?

Again with the djinn. I'm starting to wonder about your grip on reality.

All anybody has shown us in videos is a turbidity flow.

I guess it's true, people only see what they want to see.
"An analysis by Jim Hoffman argues that pyroclastic flows such as the WTC dust cloud must expand primarily by thermal heating rather than turbulent mixing with surrounding air. He shows that the pyroclastic flow from the North Tower collapse expanded to approximately three times the original volume of the tower. According to Hoffman, this expansion is due to either heating of the air mass within the towers, or boiling of the water contents of the concrete."

We are talking about paint that contains kaolinite. There is a difference.

We're talking about nanothermate, which is not paint chips. It doesn't matter what "kaolinite" is used for or why it's in paint, it's enough to know "kaolinite" is not what was in the "chips" of nanothermate found in World Trade Center dust.

Better learn what "libel" is. Truth is an infalible defense against a charge of libel.

I know what libel is. When you make claims that you know to be false, or that you could reasonably be expected to believe to be false, that is libel.

When you insist on claiming in spite of evidence to the contrary that paint is thermite...

I only ever insisted that thermite is thermite, and that paint is not thermite. I think this is where we part ways. You keep insisting that explosive material with a high energy density and the exact chemical signature of thermite is paint chips. It's mind-boggling.

we begin to run out of polite ways to tell you what an utter ass you are making of yourself.

That's funny...I was just thinking the same thing...about you...

Stop whining.

funny thing...well...use your imagination...

 

[NutCracker]

And how is this in any way different than any other published journals? it isn't. Fortunately peer review is not part of the scientific method, and therefore not part of science, otherwise we might have to take all of it seriously. Deliberate fraud like that described in this "experiment" is extremely difficult to combat. Deliberate fraud carried out against Bentham also in no way casts Bentham in a poor light.

I see. So by implication, when I take a parcel full of wires, batteries, PCB's, nitrated compounds, and what have you, on board an airplane and fly to another continent and still have the package in my possesion when I leave the airport all the while nobody paid any attention to me or my parcel that doesn't cast doubt on the quality of the safety procedures of the airliners and airports involved. That's good to know.

It's also good to know that peer-review isn't part of the scientific process.

Learned a lot today.

 

[cev08241971]

They are one in the same.

Wow, maybe that explains the remarkable consistency.

 

[dtugg]

Are you going to admit that you lied when you said that there is independent confirmation regarding that your God Jones's "research"?

 

[cev08241971]

Are you going to admit that you lied when you said that there is independent confirmation regarding that your God Jones's "research"?

I didn't lie, so I have nothing to admit. Are you going to admit that you lied when you suggested I lied? We can go around and around like this all day. The research has been published and peer reviewed, you can't ask for more than that. To suggest that these people are liars or fools just because you don't agree with the objective conclusions of the study is a bit extreme.

 

[NutCracker]

Wow, maybe that explains the remarkable consistency.

Errr.. Jones confirming the results of a paper he himslef co-authored kinda negates the "independent" in "independent confirmation."

 

[dtugg]

What, do you think the evil debunkers just made up the term "peer review"? That it is not necessary in order for a scientific journal to be legitimate? lol

 

[triforcharity]

The supposition that Bentham operates any differently than any other publication house publishing "peer reviewed" journals is unsupported by evidence. Other "reputable" publications are equally worthless and incapable of detecting fraud and abuse, as has been demonstrated numerous times by many avenues.

See a previous post of mine where I deconstruct this "sham" model of Bentham. It's no more a "sham" than any other "peer reviewed" publications.

How did Jones find out who his peer-reviewers were?

Mackey has published papers before, as have I. I have published in the last 7 years, in the neighborhood of 10-15 papers. I have YET to find out who my peer-reviewers were, and have YET to have to pay to publish my material.

The journals that I publish to also don't solicit entries from me on a topic I do not study. They also don't beg for me to publish either. They don't invite people to sit on their peer-review, or other boards, who have incorrect or no qualifications.

Bentham has done all of the above.

 

[dtugg]

I didn't lie, so I have nothing to admit. Are you going to admit that you lied when you suggested I lied? We can go around and around like this all day. The research has been published and peer reviewed, you can't ask for more than that. To suggest that these people are liars or fools just because you don't agree with the objective conclusions of the study is a bit extreme.

Perhaps you don't know what "independent confirmation" means, in which case you might not be lying. That doesn't exactly improve you position, however.

 

[GlennB]

I guess it's true, people only see what they want to see.
"An analysis by Jim Hoffman argues that pyroclastic flows such as the WTC dust cloud must expand primarily by thermal heating rather than turbulent mixing with surrounding air. He shows that the pyroclastic flow from the North Tower collapse expanded to approximately three times the original volume of the tower. According to Hoffman, this expansion is due to either heating of the air mass within the towers, or boiling of the water contents of the concrete."

You might be interested to know that Hoffman abandoned both those theories of the WTC dust clouds. All along he'd misinterpreted a well-known study of the dust and extrapolated its results in a most unscientific manner.

Also, I don't know where you got that quote. As I recall Hoffman went looking for free water (the water bound in concrete being entirely insufficient) but couldn't find it.

While you're here -- we're all still waiting for your evidence of the many independent studies into Jones' red/gray chips.

 

[triforcharity]

Wow, maybe that explains the remarkable consistency.

You don't get it do you?

That is like asking the wolf to watch the henhouse.

Too funny.....