ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory , thermite , wtc1 , wtc2

Closed Thread
Old 9th April 2009, 04:29 PM   #1401
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
I think that value is in the ballpark. How much do you think would be needed then?

Here's some help if you really care about the truth:

Dr. Greenings calc max boundary for 100 micron thickness:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...-15.html#p2605

A more realistic value:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=951

Regarding a practical application:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1067

We're talking about a 1 in thick coating for 1 in thick steel. The materials are roughly the same weight. Even if it was 1/10th of what I am saying (i.e. 10,000 tons), it would be a ridiculous plan because there are much better alternatives where the perpetrators could avoid that telltale bright white light emanating from the entire building on all sides.
Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:33 PM   #1402
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
No evidence? Would NIST scientists that knew of this delivery system of nano-thermite be so utterly clueless?
What on gods earth are you getting on with? Are you intentionally acting so stupid? That is an honest question?

TAM
T.A.M. 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:35 PM   #1403
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.
Well then why didn't they just simply use piximite. I mean the equivalent amount of piximite to produce the needed heat would be only 1-2 mm thick...that would only be a couple of coats of pixiprimer.

TAM
T.A.M. 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:35 PM   #1404
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Done. I wrote:
Professor Jones has asked for more details. I know there was a link posted in this, by now, very long thread. Can somebody provide the link to the video (or audio), and the quotes, and, if handy, the point in the video or audio where Professor Jones spoke about lab tests. The date and place of the talk would be nice.
metamars 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:37 PM   #1405
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,903
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
I read somewhere else a few days ago that one of the persons that collected substantial amounts of dust was going to use it in some sort of remembrance sculpture or art exhibit. ill have to go look for the source to cite and edit this post later.
Yes, this was what Jones implied strongly when he first showed off some pieces of molten metal; IIRC this was at the Los Angeles conference in 2006 that was broadcast on CSPAN. He said that somebody had seen this slag had fallen off one of the memorial sculptures and picked it up and put it in a bucket, and moved out to California a few years later (which MacKinlay did) and left it in her garage for years. I could never quite get a read on whether MacKinlay's boyfriend had been the sculptor or not.

ETA: See this video at about 24:10. It is not clear to me that Jones is referring to MacKinlay here.

ETA 2. MacKinlay's dust has also been used to confirm the use of mini-nukes:

Quote:
In a collaborative effort between Author/Artist/Survivor/Patriot Janette MacKinlay, Physicist Dr. Bill Deagle, MD, and Dr. Ed Ward, MD, MT, WTC debris has been received by a Certified Laboratory for key tests which may show definitive origination for the massive Tritium Levels in the WTC buildings.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 9th April 2009 at 05:14 PM.
Brainster is online now   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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:40 PM   #1406
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
You can also ask him why he failed to put that crucial information in his paper and whilst you're at it slap his wrist for such a basic error, it's unforgivable for someone of a post graduate level.
Professor Jones has replied. He wants to know for which purpose the paint you are asking about is supposed to be for. (AFAIR, there was a test for resistance, and some burn tests).

Can you please formulate the paint question more precisely. As in "The paint you referred to on page X, paragraph y, for which z was claimed, is which exact paint?"
metamars 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:46 PM   #1407
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
What is the exact name, and composition of the paint they tested to rule out "paint" as a source of the chips?

If he used more than one, then give the names and compositions of all of the ones he used.

Seems simple enough!!!

TAM
T.A.M. 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:48 PM   #1408
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
 
The Platypus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
Is there even such a thing in existance as military grade nano thermite?
The Platypus 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:51 PM   #1409
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
...Regarding a practical application:
Quote:
{Part only}...If I thought this work was convincing I would support it. My impression of Sunstealer, Mackey and Dr. Greening is that they are good scientists. They are bringing up important issues that should be resolved before getting to far along with acting on any perceived implications....
We're talking about a 1 in thick coating for 1 in thick steel. The materials are roughly the same weight. Even if it was 1/10th of what I am saying (i.e. 10,000 tons), it would be a ridiculous plan because there are much better alternatives where the perpetrators could avoid that telltale bright white light emanating from the entire building on all sides.
Whilst I respect the wishes of persons who want to pursue the scientific aspects of these excursion topics I personally prefer the direct approach to the implicit primary question of "demolition or not?".

Since direct consideration of the "no demolition" evidence legitimately takes us straight to the negative answer of "NO DEMOLITION" I prefer not to give "truthers" or pro demolition conspirisists the ego satisfaction of even responding to nonsense claims.

Hence my advocacy, to those who are interested in the science, of clearly identifying that their interest is in the science of something that cannot affect the primary question of "Demolition or not?"

For example the issue of molten steel in the basements, usually presented with the inference that it had something to do with demolition. Plus the second innuendo in the form of a statement "was still present weeks after" implying it had been there from 9/11 and had remained hot/molten. In reality the only way the metal flow from level 8n could have been molten steel caused by thermxte requires a fire suited suicide team to enter the impact zone after the plane crash and conduct a specific set of logistic operations. So near enough to "impossible" in lay person speak and "veryN improbable" in scientific speak where "N" is a big number.

AND the molten metal at ground level weeks later needs a "multiple quantum leap" into improbabilites to tie it to the material flowing from the 8nth floor.

So your comment
Quote:
...My impression of Sunstealer, Mackey and Dr. Greening is that they are good scientists. They are bringing up important issues that should be resolved before getting to far along with acting on any perceived implications....
I agree that they are raising interesting issues BUT there is no need to resolve them "...before getting to far along with acting on any perceived implications...." - the implications perceived or intended are far easier dealt with by direct attack and rebuttal of more relevant points.

For example the only location and stage of the collapse where use of thermate may have assisted the actual collapse is in the impact zone in the interval of time between aircraft crash and the "initial collapse" which triggered the inevitable "Global Collapse". (Note my careful structure of "assisted the actual collapse" - there are "logic gaps to cover" but I take the simple track for this illustration). There are two other "possibilities" of time and location but both can be eliminated by simple analysis/logic.

I routinely refer to the "collapse that actually happened" because most demolition techniques are not valid causes of that "collapse that actually happened". So coating low level columns with therm*te OR explosively cutting core columns in the basement OR (many others) are not and cannot be components of a scheme of demolition actually employed on 9/11. They can easily be shown to be inconsistent with the "collapse that actually happened".

Your reference to the absence of a tell tale white hot glow showing no use of Therm*te is one such case. I say "since it couldn't be so" why stroke the egos of the "truther charlatans" by debating it - other than as a matter of interest only.
ozeco41 is online now   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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:53 PM   #1410
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
metamars: Any paints Jones used for the purposes of writing this paper, he should divulge.

For our CD advocate friends out there, please read through this report:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%2...logy.Final.pdf

It's a PDF made by the RJ LeeGroup explaining the composition and morphology of the WTC dust. Their elaborate collection procedure is detailed within. Please compare it to Jones' "some people put dust in baggies and mailed it to us" methodology.

Please remember this - the report quoted in this post shows that paint chips were found in the dust. Did Jones find any paint chips in his dust samples? Wouldn't that have been something worthwhile to have compared to his red/gray chips? Why didn't he?
boloboffin 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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:57 PM   #1411
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by The Platypus View Post
Is there even such a thing in existance as military grade nano thermite?
Not in my day in the Army but that is now 20 years past. (gee - I am that old..... )

...and that is only one point wrong with all this nano thermite nonsense.
ozeco41 is online now   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
Old 9th April 2009, 04:59 PM   #1412
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain.
So you do not even know whether or not such a thing exists, but state that it is ther best explanation for the collapse.

If you cannot descxribe it in full detail, stop expecting rational adults who have reason to believe otherwise that your garbage exists.

You're making less sense than some of those idiots from WeAreChange.
leftysergeant 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:02 PM   #1413
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Not in my day in the Army but that is now 20 years past. (gee - I am that old..... )

...and that is only one point wrong with all this nano thermite nonsense.
I would bet that it would leave the same kind of coating on metal that the military thermite I worked with, or the improvised thermite that I made for arson investigations classes left behind.

Insolulable chalky white and baked onto the metal.
leftysergeant 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:05 PM   #1414
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.
Would the steel crystals explain why the chips were attracted to a magnet?
WilliamSeger 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:11 PM   #1415
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
See "Obtaining the first dust sample" at http://911guide.googlepages.com/jones
Just had a look at that and opened some links - I listened to the first 3 minutes or so of the video and she ticked all the boxes in my head that I would prejudicially associate with someone who was a bit more flamboyant, artsy fartsy type etc. Then I looked at the Fortunate Diary and it's well put together with some striking images and I revised my view a little. She's obviously had a traumatic experience. I feel for her (although that won't get in the way of a good objective examination).

The only mention that I can see about her boyfriend and welding along with other info is

Quote:
This dust was exposed to all surrounding conditions for a minimum of nine days before being collected.
Quote:
It is also important to note, that her boyfriend, Jim Lecce, was a sculptor who possibly worked with metals and welding equipment
Quote:
"I (Jannette MacKinlay) moved to New York in September of 1997 with sculptor Jim Lecce to curate art shows featuring both New York and California artists. What was initially going to be a three-month stay turned into four years. Our art loft was directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex."

The dust sample is taken from a household of a man, who was possibly using welding gear to make sculptures. Welding gear can create the iron spheres Jones is talking about. Even the possibility of contamination of the dust samples with dust from his clothing hasn't been ruled out, or even addressed. And this sample was the main piece of evidence he built his theory on
Whilst I can fully appreciate the above statements, there isn't any evidence that he actually did any welding work in the apartment, nor whether he came home in the same overalls or that the overalls ever entered the apartment. However, I take on board the possibility of cross-contamination, whether that be with regard to iron-microspheres, paint or any other material.

This only highlights, again, the problems with such a sample, but also that there is a problem with the method of paint chip extraction from the dust in that it will only pick up certain things and that if you concentrate on them and disregard the rest then you start to get tunnel vision. Why are iron micro-spheres important? Why concentrate on them? Why are subsequent materials removed by the same extraction process important? You get the idea.

I've seen some characterisation under microscope and SEM of the dust and it would be impossible and unreasonable to examine every particle as well as those recovered from magnetic separation, however, it is reasonable to ask for a characterization of the individual chips that Jones has recovered with this method.

It is not unreasonable to want to see a full visual characterization (and therefore labelling) of these chips, especially in light of the view that they are not all the same - as evidence by Jones et al and their paper. A visual characterization would group the specimens accordingly and help the individual in the task of choosing which chips should be used for each testing method. What is clear is that duplication has occurred and we have 3 specimens a,b,d (with "c" coming close - see red layer spectra Fig 7) that are identical, being used with the suggestion that this is typical of each sample. It clearly isn't due to chips such as that found in Fig 31, which have multiple layers - which has significantly different elements observed in the "gray layer" aswell as this layer being considerably thicker than samples a-d.

Is this chip an anomaly? If so how has that been determined? (especially bearing in mind the difference in "gray layer" spectra). Why was it not included for further examination or given greater prominence in a paper that had room taken up by duplication of information from samples a-d?

Now I admit I maybe being a bit harsh here. There is only so much room in a paper and decisions must be made what to publish (in terms of pretty pictures and space) and what to file. Some may think I'm nit picking and that's fair enough, but I'd have preferred to have seen a more measured approach.

Characterize the specimens from each sample - this allows one to observe patterns and determine what is needed for examination. By all means examine samples a-d as has been done, but at least keep one of these for the MEK test rather than do DSC on all of them then select a new sample and not subject it to the same examination as specimens a-d - that way you keep consistency with the experiments and therefore the paper.

OK - I've waffled on and it's probably tl;dr for a few, but I hope that those who do read get the gist of what I'm saying.
Sunstealer 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:14 PM   #1416
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Professor Jones has asked for more details. I know there was a link posted in this, by now, very long thread. Can somebody provide the link to the video (or audio), and the quotes, and, if handy, the point in the video or audio where Professor Jones spoke about lab tests. The date and place of the talk would be nice.
In the Boston lecture in december 2007 he introduced the unreacted thermite for the first time I believe. I think he said something about independent testing at that lecture.Keep us informed of the email exchange if you would.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...67030316250&ei Boston lecture
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 9th April 2009 at 05:34 PM. Reason: spelling
bill smith 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:15 PM   #1417
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,266
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
...and that is the crux of your problem, alien. You are assuming that the material was not universally applied.

Once you crack the means with which the towers were demolished, the evidence discovered by Jones becomes insurmountable.

Government hacks - like the majority of posters in this thread - simply lack the power to deduce how the towers were demolished.
You lack the knowledge to understand why the WTC collapse. Lack of knowledge you seem proud of, as you support the idiotic ideas of Jones and 911Truth due to your ignorance on the topics related to 911. You are gullible and have no clue on the mechanisms of failure. At least you wasted no money or time on education in the past 7 years. You are a welcome member of 911Truth, no clue what happen and happy to repeat the lies, hearsay, and failed delusions at will.
beachnut 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:23 PM   #1418
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
The only mention that I can see about her boyfriend and welding along with other info is
.
Here's a piece of his art.
http://www.nationalartsclub.org/exhi...entries/35.htm
Dog Town 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:36 PM   #1419
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
Here again, gregory, you are assuming 1" thickness. You must remember that military grade nano-thermite remains out of the public domain. Quite simply we can't guess how much, or what thickness, would be required to produce the results witnessed. Your argument fails.
Actually we can, because we know the energy required to heat a mol of steel up to it's melting point and then the energy required to transform it from a solid phase to a liquid phase - call it A. We know the thickness of steel and it's density.

Once you know this then you know what is required. Then you look at what is proposed, it's constituents and it's volume and calculate the energy generated - call it B.

if A>B for a given volume or weight then A doesn't melt.

You get the idea.

As an aside.

KreeL - Would you be a damn good fellow and help me with a calculation? I've been struggling some what. Come on be a sport, there's a good chap.

I have a material that is 20Ám thick (gawd knows what that means) and I cannot work out how many millimetres that is. I also have a piece of steel that's 5 of these blasted metric millimetres thick too! I don't know what happened to good old feet and inches (or chains for that matter), but I need some help old bean.

What I really need to know is the ratio of the thickness (that's a bit like me guffaw) of the steel to the thin 20Ám layer thingy. I'm getting all fouled up with this new-fandangled slide-rule what-dya-ma-call-it and I'm in somewhat of a pickle.

I tell you what, why don't you come over and we'll have a spot of afternoon tea, a piece of mother's frightfully good fruit cake, a quick go on the tennis lawn and then you can tell me your answer over a gin and tonic.

Toodle pip.
Sunstealer 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:40 PM   #1420
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
I'm still at a loss to explain why NIST didn't check for thermitic material in the debris during the course of their investigation.... Talk about turning a blind eye.
Kreel, if I may reply to that question; the initial investigation was carried out be FEMA, not NIST. Large numbers of experienced engineers and other specialists were at GZ fairly shortly after 9/11.
Indeed (I like that word too) there were some notable demolition specialists onsite.

From what I've read there just was no evidence to lead them down that path (CD). The steel was inspected and sorted; if there was no evidence of cutter charges, melting (thermite?) or unexploded devices, det cord, blasting caps or any other physical evidence then why would you expect them to pursue that theory?

I think you should seriously consider that the reason the mainstream, established scientific community has not embraced CD theory is that there isn't the evidence to support it - instead of assuming that they're all either incompetent or part of an unimaginably huge conspiracy.

ie if they didn't find anything, perhaps that's because there was nothing to find. If you can't accept that as a distinct possibility, you're being far too unobjective about it.
alienentity 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:47 PM   #1421
Scientiae Confidimus
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Hi all

I have great concern for the credibility and reputation of the University of Copenhagen and Niels Bohr's old institute.

Harrit and 911 truthsites have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

I hope this is a step towards repairing some of the damage done.

I'm currently considering translating a recent interview with Harrit from Danish national TV, where he claims:

- They have found nanothermite in WTC dust.
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.
- Nanothermite is super high technological front line military research

My poor language skills are holding me back, but if there is interest, i will try.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
URL: ---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4

Regards
Scientiae Confidimus

Last edited by Scientiae Confidimus; 9th April 2009 at 06:02 PM.
Scientiae Confidimus 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:49 PM   #1422
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Professor Jones has replied. He wants to know for which purpose the paint you are asking about is supposed to be for. (AFAIR, there was a test for resistance, and some burn tests).

Can you please formulate the paint question more precisely. As in "The paint you referred to on page X, paragraph y, for which z was claimed, is which exact paint?"
Sure - I'm surprised he hasn't had more queries.

The following is from the bottom of page 16 and the top of page 17 of the paper.

Quote:
2. Test Using Methyl Ethyl Ketone Solvent

By employing some means to separate the different components of the material, the chemical compositions of the different particles in the red layer were more accurately determined. The initial objective was to compare the behavior of the red layer with paint when soaked in a strong organic solvent known to soften and dissolve paint. Red/gray chips were soaked in methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) for 55 hours with frequent agitation and subsequently dried in air over several days. The chips showed significant swelling of the red layer, but with no apparent dissolution. In marked contrast, paint chips softened and partly dissolved when similarly soaked in MEK.
Those are the paint specimens I and everyone is interested in - what are they (that requires detail). I presume that this same paint was used for all of the testing comparisons.

I'd also ask why that particular type of paint was chosen as opposed to any other.

I'll leave it there for the moment - thanks.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 9th April 2009 at 05:50 PM.
Sunstealer 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:52 PM   #1423
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Kreel, I don't want to distract you from your calculations, but I'd like to point out some additional things to consider:

1) you're proposing a hypothetical mechanism with an unknown compound! That's all very well, but don't act as if it's something real. It is just unproven speculation.
2) Since these grey/red chips are omnipresent in WTC dust, and have differing molecular characteristics, it MUST be assumed that [a] they were placed deliberately in the dust samples or [b] they are extremely common materials.
If [b] they would be present in fairly large quantities at GZ, and if (as Jones et all propose) originally bonded to structural steel, SOME SUBSTANTIAL quantity would have to still be attached to the steel.

There's just NO way around it. Now, we assume that FEMA and NIST would recognize primer paint on the structural steel. That's a no-brainer. We also assume they DIDN'T see anything suspicious attached to the steel. Again pretty much a no-brainer. Therefore nanothermite paint is virtually guaranteed NOT to be the source of materials such as those seen in the dust.

It can be eliminated fairly confidently without years of tedious confirmation. I wager that NO amount of testing will produce nanothermite from GZ materials, unless by fraud or by misrepresentation (that still amounts to nothing, btw)

The odds are looking very poor indeed (again that word) for Dr. Jones et al, and their loyal followers.

ps if Drs Judy Wood and James Fetzer are reading this thread (LOL) don't get your hopes up kiddies. You're not even in Dr. Jones' league. At least he's still on the planet.

Last edited by alienentity; 9th April 2009 at 05:55 PM.
alienentity 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
Old 9th April 2009, 05:58 PM   #1424
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Scientiae Confidimus - thank you. Very interesting.

'Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.' and also
'Something is rotten in the state of Utah'

Which hamlet in Utah is the good Dr. from anyway?
alienentity 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:02 PM   #1425
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
Well then why didn't they just simply use piximite. I mean the equivalent amount of piximite to produce the needed heat would be only 1-2 mm thick...that would only be a couple of coats of pixiprimer.

TAM
Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:06 PM   #1426
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Kreel, I don't want to distract you from your calculations, but I'd like to point out some additional things to consider:

1) you're proposing a hypothetical mechanism with an unknown compound! That's all very well, but don't act as if it's something real. It is just unproven speculation.
2) Since these grey/red chips are omnipresent in WTC dust, and have differing molecular characteristics, it MUST be assumed that [a] they were placed deliberately in the dust samples or [b] they are extremely common materials.
If [b] they would be present in fairly large quantities at GZ, and if (as Jones et all propose) originally bonded to structural steel, SOME SUBSTANTIAL quantity would have to still be attached to the steel.

There's just NO way around it. Now, we assume that FEMA and NIST would recognize primer paint on the structural steel. That's a no-brainer. We also assume they DIDN'T see anything suspicious attached to the steel. Again pretty much a no-brainer. Therefore nanothermite paint is virtually guaranteed NOT to be the source of materials such as those seen in the dust.

It can be eliminated fairly confidently without years of tedious confirmation. I wager that NO amount of testing will produce nanothermite from GZ materials, unless by fraud or by misrepresentation (that still amounts to nothing, btw)

The odds are looking very poor indeed (again that word) for Dr. Jones et al, and their loyal followers.

ps if Drs Judy Wood and James Fetzer are reading this thread (LOL) don't get your hopes up kiddies. You're not even in Dr. Jones' league. At least he's still on the planet.
Thermitic evidence was indeed found. I assume you read the paper? How deep can your head be buried in the sand? Somehow being a NIST apologist doesn't suit you well, my friend.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:08 PM   #1427
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Scientiae Confidimus View Post
'Harrit and 911 truthsite have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm
Scientiae Confidimus
Anyone wanna bet that Niels O. Andersen's name won't stay connected with Bentham's in the truthersphere? Truthers to error correction are like Dracula to garlic necklaces.
alienentity 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:10 PM   #1428
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Scientiae Confidimus View Post
Hi all

I have great concern for the credibility and reputation of the University of Copenhagen and Niels Bohr's old institute.

Harrit and 911 truthsites have attempted to gain credibility for they work and Bentham by pointing out that the dean of the natural science faculty of the university of Copenhagen is a member of The open chemical physical journal's editorial board.

This appears to no longer be the case. Dean Niels O. Andersen has been removed from the list of editors.

List of editors:
URL: ---.bentham.org/open/tocpj/EBM.htm

I hope this is a step towards repairing some of the damage done.

I'm currently considering translating a recent interview with Harrit from Danish national TV, where he claims:

- They have found nanothermite in WTC dust.
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.
- Nanothermite is super high technological front line military research

My poor language skills are holding me back, but if there is interest, i will try.

Interview with Niels Harrit:
URL: ---.youtube.com/watch?v=nP810ssxyo4

Regards
Scientiae Confidimus
Welcome. enjoy.
tsig 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:10 PM   #1429
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I would bet that it would leave the same kind of coating on metal that the military thermite I worked with, or the improvised thermite that I made for arson investigations classes left behind.

Insolulable chalky white and baked onto the metal.
I make no comments or admissions as to my possible involvement in experiments in blowing things up....

....however I did hear some vague rumours about......

ozeco41 is online now   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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:12 PM   #1430
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?
If a plane full of fuel ran into it I wouldn't think arson.
tsig 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:14 PM   #1431
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Of course not. It's not your job. That's why NIST failed.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:15 PM   #1432
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
Thermitic evidence was indeed found. I assume you read the paper? How deep can your head be buried in the sand? Somehow being a NIST apologist doesn't suit you well, my friend.
I'm an apologist for the truth and facts, my friend, not NIST. If you read my post carefully you will understand that the thermite claims ultimately must fit with reality - they cannot remain purely hypothetical. At some point the material would need to be applied in large quantities - you can't get around this. There WOULD be evidence on the leftover steel itself. This isn't a bad TV movie, y'know - stuff just doesn't disappear like magic because you say so. (ie appear in all the dust but NONE on the steel - not possible)

Just because the Jones paper describes this material as thermitic doesn't mean that it could actually do anything to structural steel. You do understand that, don't you?

Do you guys have any idea how far past the evidence you're leaping? Slow down and think, man.

Last edited by alienentity; 9th April 2009 at 06:17 PM.
alienentity 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:16 PM   #1433
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
Well how about you research a bit for yourself? Have you even read the paper presented?

If the business down the street from you burns down, and in the following investigation it is shown that accelerants were found indicating arson, would you doubt that simply because you don't understand it?
That is crazy funny. Because your're the one ignoring the investigation because you don't understand it. And because you really, really, really, really, want 9/11 to be an inside jobby job. Instead you listen to some quacks who wrote some crappy paper they had to pay to get published.

Hey twoofer, explain how magic super duper mega nano therm*te managed to destroy a skyscraper. Produces the calculations proving it can cut through vertical columns, calculate how much was needed, explain where it was applied and how it all got there, explain how it survived the plane crashes and fires , ect. I dare you, twoofer.
dtugg 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:21 PM   #1434
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post

Hey twoofer, explain how magic super duper mega nano therm*te managed to destroy a skyscraper. Produces the calculations proving it can cut through vertical columns, calculate how much was needed, explain where it was applied and how it all got there, explain how it survived the plane crashes and fires , ect. I dare you, twoofer.
And how it magically vanished off all the structural steel after collapse, but reappeared in Dr. Jones' samples.
alienentity 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:21 PM   #1435
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,020
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
READ POST 1299 - That SEM Photo clarifies once and for all that Jones' samples a-d are paint attached to hematite. No mistakes, no ifs, no buts, it clearly shows a crystalline metallic substrate called steel with an oxidised layer and then paint attached.

Stop with the BS, the spamming the insinuation etc - that photo sinks Jones et al.
Sunstealer, could the steel crystals explain why the chips were attracted to a magnet?
WilliamSeger 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:22 PM   #1436
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
I'm an apologist for the truth and facts, my friend, not NIST. If you read my post carefully you will understand that the thermite claims ultimately must fit with reality - they cannot remain purely hypothetical. At some point the material would need to be applied in large quantities - you can't get around this. There WOULD be evidence on the leftover steel itself. This isn't a bad TV movie, y'know - stuff just doesn't disappear like magic because you say so. (ie appear in all the dust but NONE on the steel - not possible)

Just because the Jones paper describes this material as thermitic doesn't mean that it could actually do anything to structural steel. You do understand that, don't you?

Do you guys have any idea how far past the evidence you're leaping? Slow down and think, man.
So you don't believe that a thermite reaction can do as much to structural steel than an office fire? Amazing -
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:23 PM   #1437
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Would the steel crystals explain why the chips were attracted to a magnet?
Firstly sorry for the large text font - it's not my style, but sometimes you have to shout above the noise.

Yes they would - but that is not quite the entire story.

The chip that has been sent to the French "truther" (I hate using that label, but there aren't any better) shows a number of different layers; namely 3.

The first - bottom layer, page 11 and page 13 left hand pic http://darksideofgravity.com/marseille.pdf is a fibrous, crystalline metallic layer, which with EDS spectra highly indicates steel. On top of that is an oxide layer, because all stable metals form a stable oxide on the surface, it stops them from burning, (middle - it's brittle - note the cracks) which can only come from the steel (and on top of that paint which is the only explanation for the material given in EDS analysis - it ain't thermite because there are far too many other elements present).

So we can safely say that the chip given to the Frenchman would indeed be attracted by a magnet.

I've alluded to the magnetism of different oxide layers or products before, so search hematite, maghemite and my name and you'll get the post in this thread.

With Jones' chips it's slightly more difficult, because we can't see the underside of the "gray layer".

Another problem is paramagnetism. On researching further, both Al, Fe2O3 in the form of hematite have these properties. In conclusion with other information I think it's wise to say that the chips would be attracted to a magnet either through paramagnetism or through magnetism. As far as I'm aware (and please anyone correct me if I'm wrong) the intention to use magnets was to separate iron-rich micro-spheres from the dust and not any other material.
Sunstealer 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:27 PM   #1438
KreeL
Muse
 
KreeL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 659
Originally Posted by dtugg View Post
Hey twoofer, explain how magic super duper mega nano therm*te managed to destroy a skyscraper.
How about you explain why it was there...and how it can't be used to produce the obvious.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." -- Philip K. Dick
KreeL 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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:29 PM   #1439
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,505
Originally Posted by Scientiae Confidimus View Post
....
- The nanothermite is an explosive, apparently capable of hurling 30 tons steel beams in parabolic trajectories up to 100m.....
Welcome from another "Newbie" Scientiae Confidimus.

If that claim is true we are seeing some fundamental revolution in basic physics.


Seriously ask the base question(s) "How does an explosive apply pressure to a mass to make a force which accelerates that mass over a time interval to a velocity which then results in a parabolic trajectory 100m long?"

An explosive works by producing rapidly expanding gas. The particle size for most changes the rate of gas emmission.

For any given quantity of explosive/firearm propellant grinding to smaller particles produces the gas faster but for a short time frame compared with larger particles producing gas more slowly with lower pressures but over a longer period of time. However, to first order accuracy, the quantity of gas is the same for both OR any intermediate sizes of particles.

And, to accelerate a mass the gas has to be constrained - hence most guns have breeches , chambers and barrels - those constrain the expanding gas to pushing the bullet/shell by its arse up the barrel and it accelerates all the way. Remove the constraints of barrel, chamber etc and you can set the cartidge off with a match without serious risk. (For rifle calibre stuff anyway - not Big Mo's 16 inch pop guns or similar.)

So don't hold your breath waiting for some big break through.
ozeco41 is online now   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
Old 9th April 2009, 06:30 PM   #1440
dtugg
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,885
Originally Posted by KreeL View Post
How about you explain why it was there...and how it can't be used to produce the obvious.
In other words, you've got nothing. No surprise. You're a twoofer, after all!
dtugg 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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:27 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.