View Single Post
Old 3rd April 2009, 07:55 PM   #62
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by Mercutio View Post
So... just curious... suppose it actually was thermite, instead of red (iron-pigmented) paint chips. A layer of thermite the thickness of a thick coat of paint--given something as massive as a steel beam, is the paint-thickness thermite likely to heat the beam up enough to make it too warm to pick up without gloves? Weaken steel? Liquify?
Absolutely not. The heat content of thermite per pound is several times less than gasoline or even paper. You'd do more damage to the steel columns by wallpapering over them and setting that on fire.

Thermite only provides an advantage if there's so much of it, and you can convince it to react so quickly, that it exceeds the heating caused by regular combustion, which is dependent on atmospheric oxygen and limits its rate. This requires much more than a "thin film." Try inches. Maybe more, it's hard to quantify since they've never actually produced a complete hypothesis.

Anyway, the one thing that cracks me up the most about this paper is its own self-inconsistency... Several times we are told that the stuff can't be paint, notably in Section 7. But in Section 5 they talk about how their super-nano-destructo-stuff can be "painted" on, and they reference a material science report that uses Viton, a synthetic rubber compound, as a binder. So... they're saying that it can't be paint but it could be "paint?" What?

Obviously, Dr. Jones and company are aware that there's more than one kind of paint, or else they wouldn't have suggested the mystery substance could be "paint."

I still say the stuff is paint. You'll note that, conspicuously absent from this paper, is any description of the baseline paint they used for comparison in their various tests. The fallacy, therefore, is one of hasty generalization. Some paint will surely dissolve in methyl ethyl ketone, but that doesn't mean it all will. Not all paints burn the same, either. And somebody check me on this, but I believe Viton -- and by inference, the "sol-gel" they talk about above -- would dissolve in MEK, so this test seems inadequate to test either baseline paint or the mystery sample.

I say it's paint because every property they detected is consistent with paint. Metallic pigments, check. Aluminum oxide coating on pigments, check. Ignition temperature, check. All we need to do is find a paint that (a) was plausibly used in the WTC, and (b) after years of drying resists solution in MEK. Shouldn't be too hard. I note that the paints used 40 years ago are quite unlike paint you could buy off the shelf today, thanks to environmental regulations, so I would be highly surprised if whatever unspecified paint they used was at all comparable.

Whatever the stuff is, though, Dr. Jones's results here clearly demonstrate that it isn't thermite. There are at least three mechanical and physical properties he's worked out here that prove it isn't thermite. That's even if we overlook that huge quantities of it would be needed to cause anything, etc. -- I'll let you guys spot them. It's quite hilarious.

Now, regarding Bentham. It's fun to slam Bentham, but let's be clear on one point: Just because it's in Bentham doesn't mean its conclusions are wrong. Those are indeed wrong, but don't confuse the messenger with the message.

Slamming the paper because it's in Bentham, however, strikes me as appropriate. This is because, as far as I know, all of the results and all of the argumentation in the paper is not new. The only new thing here, the only new event, is the act of publication itself. Since the publication is a sham, to put it mildly, this is fair game for criticism.

Here's another fun fact about Bentham: Just yesterday, they invited me to be an Editorial Board Member! oh, happy day. That e-mail went straight to trash, but after I read this I retrieved it. Here's a sample of their pitch:

Originally Posted by Bentham Open
Based on your eminent contributions in the field of space technology, we would like to consider your possible nomination to the Editorial Board Membership of the journal. As an editorial board member, you may be required to occasionally review research papers. To make sure the Editorial Board of the journal consists of potential productive scientists, it is expected that all of the board members will publish one article each year in the journal which will be published after the routine reviewing process. The first article received from the EBMs each year will be published free of charge while the subsequent ones will be entitled to a 50% discount off the publication fees for submission of their manuscripts to the journal.
(Emphasis added)

Oh, my, what a laugh that gave me. They need me to submit and pay for papers (at a discount, natch) to verify that I'm a "potential productive scientist??" Why the heck are they extending the offer if I'm not? Why don't they look at my other publications to make this determination?

I participate in peer review all the time. Just last week I reviewed a paper for the ASME, and I'm not even a member there; I got hit up out of the blue for my actual contributions which were similar to the paper under consideration. Next week I'm going to AIAA Infotech to present, and our paper there was reviewed properly. This stunt Bentham is pulling is a scam. I have never run into anyone professionally associated with them, and if I do, it will lower my respect for them enormously.

Suffice to say, I rejected the offer. But, if the Truth Movement thinks Bentham's blessing is so important, then obviously they must also think, by virtue of the above endorsement from Bentham, I'm qualified to review this paper. I'd flunk it, for reasons expressed above.

Maybe Dr. Jones should join Bentham. He seems to like publishing there, and I imagine they'd offer him the discount as well.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 3rd April 2009 at 07:56 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top