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 9/11 conspiracy theories , Bentham journals , nanothermite , Niels Harrit , steven jones , thermite

Reply
Old 1st February 2010, 08:45 PM   #361
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 08:48 PM   #362
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?


.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1694
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 1st February 2010 at 08:49 PM.
A W 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 08:55 PM   #363
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Yea, I read that. Kaolinite has both Al and Si, however, they are bound. Are you suggesting that MEK caused a reaction that unbound the Al from the Si?


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 08:58 PM   #364
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post

I'd love to know how and why it's in the dust.
Aluminum, and iron?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 08:59 PM   #365
Thunder
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,918
I like how the OP begins. Its literally like the continuation of a paragraph from a 6 month old thread.

Truthers are funny. They make me giggle.
Thunder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:09 PM   #366
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
So the very scientific, skeptical "debunkers" accept without any question that soaking something in MEK can actually separate aluminum silicates into elemental Al and a silicon compound? Seriously? This kind of non-reasoning counts as "skepticism" here at JREF?

Anyone want to buy some spoon bending DVD's? You can do it too! Only $17.99 plus shipping. Results may vary, and by "vary" i mean they may not happen at all, at all.


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:10 PM   #367
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Yea, I read that. Kaolinite has both Al and Si, however, they are bound. Are you suggesting that MEK caused a reaction that unbound the Al from the Si?


.
no free aluminum
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=150


from this thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:15 PM   #368
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Ouch...that's gonna leave a mark!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:15 PM   #369
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
There was indeed elemental Al found in the samples. They didn't soak all the samples in MEK. Nor did they ignite all the samples. The sample that was soaked in MEK demonstrated that the Al migrated during the soaking period and the Si did not. They were not bound.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:16 PM   #370
Reactor drone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,095
Jay might be on to something here.I just set fire to a piece of steel wool with an ordinary lighter and small blobs of red hot metal were formed.

Why would anybody make a skyscraper out of a material that ignites at such a low temperature.This conspiracy must go back to the construction !!.



Last edited by Reactor drone; 1st February 2010 at 09:17 PM. Reason: spelling
Reactor drone 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:17 PM   #371
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
The ways this topic is treated demonstrate well the unscientific habits that debunkers here participate in.
Hey pot, it is the kettle... you are black. A truther talking about "unscientific habits" is rather ironic.

Over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." Those errors invalidate ALL of the findings and conclusions of said "paper." That isn't even going into the pay to publish vanity journal which is Bentham.

Try again, with some REAL science.

Quote:
Why? If the material Harrit, Farrer, Jones, et. al. found is so much nonsense, then why can't it just be handled head-on, without resorting to pretended lacks of understanding, circumstantial ad hominems, and distractions?
Again let me repeat. Over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." It completely invalidates any findings or conclusions drawn. That is science. Try again.

Quote:
You don't like the journal it's published in? Fine.
You are using a word that you do not understand. It isn't a journal. It is a vanity press, a pay to publish press. It wasn't peer reviewed, it wasn't sent to any type of REAL JOURNAL. Try again

Quote:
You don't like other things the authors have written? So what?
What else have these authors written that has passed peer review in ANY real journal? Huh?

Quote:
None of that changes what they found.
What did they find? With over 20 methodological errors in this "paper" it invalidates any findings or conclusions. Very simple. What paints did they use for a control? It isn't mentioned in the paper. We find out later it was BYU stadium paint by a DIFFERENT MANUFACTURER, a DIFFERENT COLOR. So the control is crap. Why was it tested in an oxygen rich envrionment? Thermite burns in a vaccuum. Those are freshman college experimental errors.

Quote:
The little actual scientific debate of the merits of the research say basically that the chips were paintóDESPITE the fact that paint (especially in the WTC towers) could withstand temperatures of at least 800C.
let me repeat myself. Over 20 major methodological errors completely invalidates any findings or conclusions drawn from this "paper."

Why won't you all submit your samples to an independent lab? Can't afford the $100?

Quote:
The thermitic chips in the WTC dust IGNITED at about 430C. Not only did they ignite, they formed iron microspheres. Imagine that.
AGain and again. Let me use little words. If you do bad science, you can't use it. Over 20 methodological errors in this "paper" completely invalidate their findings and conclusions. Try again

Quote:
Does primer ignite at 430C? Can you show me a sample somewhere, anywhere, that ignites at 430C when dry?
I honestly don't know. But you are already making a massive methodological error. We are not talking about unreacted primer paint at 430 C. We are talking about paint chips which were baked in the fires after the collapse, possibly having been in and on fire. So you cannot compare unreacted primer paint with it. Try again.

It would help if you took even a basic science course... and experimental methods course would be better.

Quote:
Much less a sample that produces metallic iron when ignited?
Oh back to the "iron rich microspheres?" Really? ROFLMAO.

Quote:
We all know it doesnít exist. What would be the point? To make a REALLY unsafe primer that ignites at a very achievable office fire temperatures and proceeds to increase BEYOND the melting point of iron?
What was the hindenberg painted in? Oops.
What does the paint chips match? Oh the composition of the primer paint. Doh.

Quote:
Another standard response to this will no doubt be the uncontrollable urge to turn this into a debate over HOW the thermitic material could possibly have ended up in the towers. Now, thatís not a bad line of inquiry in itself IF it werenít intended solely to be used as a means to reduce the premise to an absurdity and thus, dismiss it.
Not at all. First you need to prove it was thermitic materials, which you have completely FAILED to do. Why can't you do SIMPLE science? Yet again, over 20 methodological errors in this "paper." Try again. This time with 1. a real journal. 2. with real science. 3. maybe with people who are not working WAY outside of their fields. Better yet, send the samples to a truely INDEPENDENT LAB for analysis. It is like $100. Too much for you all?

Quote:
I'd love to know how and why it's in the dust. But suggesting that because someone doesn't know exactly how it was used, we can therefore dismiss their scientific findings, is poor reasoning at best.
No. Not even getting that far. So far you all have failed to do competent science, and you are trying to pass of pseudo science to illiterate truthers... It won't pass muster here.

So go back and do real science. Then come back and lets talk. But don't bring up craptacular fail like this.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:19 PM   #372
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Reactor drone View Post
Jay might be on to something here.I just set fire to a piece of steel wool with an ordinary lighter and small blobs of red hot metal were formed.

Why would anybody make a skyscraper out of a material that ignites at such a low temperature.This conspiracy must go back to the construction !!.


So you have some primer that ignites at 800F and produces molten iron? Wow! Sounds like you've got a really valuable lawsuit on your hands!


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:21 PM   #373
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Exactly. There's no evidence of free (elemental) aluminum.

The reason the aluminum is in flat hexagonal plates is because that is a crystalline form of aluminum oxide, found in many, many, many minerals. Including those used in paint.

No elemental aluminum, no thermite, nano- or otherwise.

Please join me in ignoring Truthers. They've demonstrated that they either will not or cannot learn, and I don't know which is sadder.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:24 PM   #374
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So the very scientific, skeptical "debunkers" accept without any question that soaking something in MEK can actually separate aluminum silicates into elemental Al and a silicon compound? Seriously? This kind of non-reasoning counts as "skepticism" here at JREF?

Anyone want to buy some spoon bending DVD's? You can do it too! Only $17.99 plus shipping. Results may vary, and by "vary" i mean they may not happen at all, at all.


.
Thermite used to bring down the WTC is insanity. Is 911 Truth insane?

The red gray chips are fraud to support delusion from failed scientists who have paranoid nut case conspiracy theories; to prove me wrong get published in a real journal and expose your scenario; 99.99 percent of all scientists will pronounce your ideas on 911 as delusions; good for you.

What does not burn at 450 degrees?

Why would you use thermite when fuel has more energy, 10 TIMES more! lol

So paint does not burn? Where do you get this super paint?

What temp does paint burn at, and what are the products? Paper please;

When is your paper being published in a real journal?

Last edited by beachnut; 1st February 2010 at 09:33 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:29 PM   #375
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Jay howard, you have been registered here since 2007. Yet while quickly browsing through all nine pages in the thread I linked to there is not a single post by you in that thread which started in April of 2009. Why not? Will you be posting in that or shall i ask the moderation team to merge this new thread with the one that has all the information in it you request? Or were you hoping we would forget that thread?

here it is again, just so YOU don't forget
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 1st February 2010 at 09:31 PM.
A W 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:29 PM   #376
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
We are not talking about unreacted primer paint at 430 C. We are talking about paint chips which were baked in the fires after the collapse, possibly having been in and on fire. So you cannot compare unreacted primer paint with it. Try again..
I thought they said some woman collected it off her window or some guy found it on a railing or something far away from the collapse zone?
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:36 PM   #377
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
What paints did they use for a control? It isn't mentioned in the paper. We find out later it was BYU stadium paint by a DIFFERENT MANUFACTURER, a DIFFERENT COLOR. So the control is crap. Why was it tested in an oxygen rich envrionment? Thermite burns in a vaccuum. Those are freshman college experimental errors.
So you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?

Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
I honestly don't know.
That's refreshing. Really. We shouldn't be afraid to say it when it applies. I will do my best not to be afraid of not knowing either.

Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
But you are already making a massive methodological error. We are not talking about unreacted primer paint at 430 C. We are talking about paint chips which were baked in the fires after the collapse, possibly having been in and on fire. So you cannot compare unreacted primer paint with it. Try again.
So you think the cracked paint they used to determine temperatures reached on the columns would react the same way? That'd be a good test in my opinion. If they did in fact dissolve or react like the paint in the test, would that be enough for you to believe that the authors did in fact find thermitic materials?

Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
What was the hindenberg painted in? Oops.
Are you saying the Hindenberg was composed of material more like that in the WTC towers than primer from a stadium built in the last 20 years? Is that what they learned ya in your science classes?

Is that reasoning #SUCCESS?



.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:39 PM   #378
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by A W Smith View Post
Jay howard, you have been registered here since 2007. Yet while quickly browsing through all nine pages in the thread I linked to there is not a single post by you in that thread which started in April of 2009. Why not? Will you be posting in that or shall i ask the moderation team to merge this new thread with the one that has all the information in it you request? Or were you hoping we would forget that thread?

here it is again, just so YOU don't forget
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017
Started a new job. No time for beating my head against the wall at the time.



.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:43 PM   #379
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Started a new job. No time for beating my head against the wall at the time.



.
Oh, so you have not read it yet? Well now that you're unemployed, time to get crackin!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:46 PM   #380
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?
Bad science. What is it with you using bad science?

if your control is crap, your experiment is crap.

Again and again. I'll spell it out slowly and see if you get it this time.
if
you
use
bad
methodology
then
you
can't
use
the
results

Is that slow enough for you? Over 20 methodological ERRORS in this "paper." That completely invalidates ANY and ALL findings and conclusions. Try again, with a REAL paper.

Quote:
That's refreshing. Really. We shouldn't be afraid to say it when it applies. I will do my best not to be afraid of not knowing either.
blah blah blah. Provide REAL science. Not crap. None of the findings are useful in a crap paper. Try again.

Quote:
So you think the cracked paint they used to determine temperatures reached on the columns would react the same way? That'd be a good test in my opinion. If they did in fact dissolve or react like the paint in the test, would that be enough for you to believe that the authors did in fact find thermitic materials?
Are you blind? Do you have a reading impediment? OR is it just a lack of understanding on basic scientific method? Have you ever taken an experimental design course? If you can produce a REAL peer reviewed journal in which you don't have 20 methodological errors which invalidate any findings or conclusions, I'd love to read it. Unfortunately you are pointing to pseudo scientific claptrap designed to fool the scientifically illiterate. And you fell for it.

Quote:
Are you saying the Hindenberg was composed of material more like that in the WTC towers than primer from a stadium built in the last 20 years? Is that what they learned ya in your science classes?
Lets see... it was a paint which reacted just like thermite... wow. But hey, engineers never make mistakes right? They never have things just go "oops, I didn't think of that."

How can you compare a stadium paint (which is a different manufacturer, different color, and different composition) to your sample? YOU CAN'T. It is a bad control. Bad control = bad science.

Last edited by TruthersLie; 1st February 2010 at 09:47 PM.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:52 PM   #381
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Exactly. There's no evidence of free (elemental) aluminum.

The reason the aluminum is in flat hexagonal plates is because that is a crystalline form of aluminum oxide, found in many, many, many minerals. Including those used in paint.

No elemental aluminum, no thermite, nano- or otherwise.

Please join me in ignoring Truthers. They've demonstrated that they either will not or cannot learn, and I don't know which is sadder.

Ryan, if you would like to have a real discussion about this, then we need to agree about basic premises.

Unless you found something wrong with the XEDS analysis of the post-MEK chip, then there is no way to claim that elemental Al was NOT found.


Quote:
The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material.
pg. 18 (my emphasis)

What have they done wrong that they cannot make this claim?


.
.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:55 PM   #382
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
I don't want to have a real discussion about this. I already had one. Your side didn't understand it, and further discussion is futile. Your nonsense reply above only bolsters this impression. That's why I am Ignoring you.

I'm breaking cover just this once to clear that up for you, but that's it. Don't bother replying to me again, not here, not ever.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:55 PM   #383
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Ryan, if you would like to have a real discussion about this, then we need to agree about basic premises.

Unless you found something wrong with the XEDS analysis of the post-MEK chip, then there is no way to claim that elemental Al was NOT found.


pg. 18 (my emphasis)

What have they done wrong that they cannot make this claim?


.
.
YOu have already been linked to Sunstealers excellent debunking of this bs claim. Try to read for comprehension.

AGain and again. The simple answer is that there are over 20 methodological ERRORS in this "paper." As such, none of the findings or conclusions are valid. The entire "paper" is crap. So why don't you start over, with a new paper from scratch and do the science. It should only take a few months. You've had the time. Try again.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:56 PM   #384
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Is that a yes or a no: you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?


Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
How can you compare a stadium paint (which is a different manufacturer, different color, and different composition) to your sample? YOU CAN'T. It is a bad control. Bad control = bad science.

Right. But you can compare the Hindenberg and there's no problem there, huh?
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 09:57 PM   #385
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
I don't want to have a real discussion about this. I already had one. Your side didn't understand it, and further discussion is futile. Your nonsense reply above only bolsters this impression. That's why I am Ignoring you.

I'm breaking cover just this once to clear that up for you, but that's it. Don't bother replying to me again, not here, not ever.


Why do you always announce that you're going to ignore someone. Just ignore me, please.


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 10:00 PM   #386
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
YOu have already been linked to Sunstealers excellent debunking of this bs claim. Try to read for comprehension.

AGain and again. The simple answer is that there are over 20 methodological ERRORS in this "paper." As such, none of the findings or conclusions are valid. The entire "paper" is crap. So why don't you start over, with a new paper from scratch and do the science. It should only take a few months. You've had the time. Try again.


So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 10:00 PM   #387
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Reading for comprehension is not your strong suit eh?

Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Is that a yes or a no: you believe that if they just used the right manufacturer that the paint/primer would NOT dissolve in the MEK?
that is a "do the science right and we can have this discussion." If you use a bad control, you invalidate all of your findings.

what part of that do you NOT understand? is it the, if? you? use? a? bad? control? you? invalidate? all? of? your? findings?

What part of that is soooo hard that you must try to dodge around and try to make this pseudo scientific claptrap somewhat legitimate? It isn't and we both know it.

Quote:
Right. But you can compare the Hindenberg and there's no problem there, huh?
Go back and read where the hindenberg comment comes from. Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? It is called the law of unintended consequences.... Look it up and try to read for comprehension.
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 10:02 PM   #388
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper I've never read.


.
here ya go
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=140017
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 10:02 PM   #389
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.
I've read the "paper" repeatedly. And I keep getting tripped up on those 20 methodological errors which completely invalidate any findings.

What part of that do you not understand?

Do it again and remove those methodological errors, and we can talk. Why do you insist on dodging those methodological errors?
TruthersLie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 10:12 PM   #390
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...5&postcount=86
Quote:
Why the Silicon and any other element (except O)? Engineered aluminium nanoparticles are 99% pure (commercial pure) so why do we have all the junk in it? Secondly that EDS and the SEM photos clearly show that the platelets are comprised of an aluminosilicate. Can't be anything else. They try to get around this by soaking a completely different sample in MEK and say they found "elemental Al" but they don't show any detailed SEM images of the red layer for that chip. So where are the Al particles? They just aren't there. Their own data shows that.
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Donít get me lolín off my chesterfield dude.
A W 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st February 2010, 10:41 PM   #391
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,812
It goes completely unsaid in all of this there is an entire thermite research community in the United States and the World. Strangely, there is not only a failure to consult them, there existance in this debate has gone completely ignored. There are entire journals dedicated to related matters, such as the journal
Combustion Science and Technology
Combustion Theory and Modelling
These are a Francis & Taylor journals and are very high status. Publication in such a venue would not be questioned.

From a purely academic point of view, if I were Steven Jones or any of his lackies, I would submit a paper to the kind of conferences where research on thermite is discussed. I can suggest some names, if jay howard finds this helpful.

I can list many more journals and conferences that are far more appropriate venues to settle this problem than the James Randi Forum which has no status whatsoever as a scientific venue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that discussion about this are a complete waste of time and show that the people involved are not really interested in an answer. Of course that is the case for the regular crowd who post here only a hobby. If Dr. Jones and his crew believe this is a serious topic they should take the discussion elsewhere, otherwise an observer would be left to conclude that for them it is also only a hobby.
__________________
I've seen it here and in several other places that there is no Illuminati. That doesn't even make sense. There's a Wikipedia entry that talks about it. I'm not saying that everything on Wikipedia is true, but if you read it, it's just really clear how the Illuminati controls the world.

Last edited by Scott Sommers; 1st February 2010 at 10:46 PM.
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 02:48 AM   #392
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,079
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Can anyone back up the claim that the chips were just paint?
Since nobody can back up the claim that they were nanothermite, since it's been shown that they couldn't have had any significant effect if they had been nanothermite, and since the simple fact that they ignited at 430ļC is irrefutable proof that they cannot have remained unignited by the fires in the regions where the collapse initiated, asking for proof they were paint is the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". It doesn't really matter what they were; they cannot possibly have played any significant part in the collapses of the Twin Towers, therefore they are irrelevant to any discussion of the causes of those collapses.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 04:19 AM   #393
Cuddles
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,522
Mod InfoThreads merged.
Posted By:Cuddles
Cuddles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 07:59 AM   #394
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by TruthersLie View Post
I've read the "paper" repeatedly. And I keep getting tripped up on those 20 methodological errors which completely invalidate any findings.

What part of that do you not understand?

Do it again and remove those methodological errors, and we can talk. Why do you insist on dodging those methodological errors?
It's not that im ignoring you, it's that your claim that because there are errors you can dismiss all the findings in the paper, does not follow.

It's a good point that they didn't use the same paint as was in the towers. As I asked above, do you think the paint from the towers would NOT dissolve or become soft? Does the XEDS analysis care if they used a poor control paint in the MEK soak? Do the x-rays somehow know it's poor methodology and therefore refuse to produce accurate spectrum data?

Did you find something wrong with the acquisition or analysis of the spectrum data?


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 08:07 AM   #395
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by scott.in.taiwan View Post
It goes completely unsaid in all of this there is an entire thermite research community in the United States and the World. Strangely, there is not only a failure to consult them, there existance in this debate has gone completely ignored. There are entire journals dedicated to related matters, such as the journal
Combustion Science and Technology
Combustion Theory and Modelling
These are a Francis & Taylor journals and are very high status. Publication in such a venue would not be questioned.

From a purely academic point of view, if I were Steven Jones or any of his lackies, I would submit a paper to the kind of conferences where research on thermite is discussed. I can suggest some names, if jay howard finds this helpful.

I can list many more journals and conferences that are far more appropriate venues to settle this problem than the James Randi Forum which has no status whatsoever as a scientific venue. In fact, I would go so far as to say that discussion about this are a complete waste of time and show that the people involved are not really interested in an answer. Of course that is the case for the regular crowd who post here only a hobby. If Dr. Jones and his crew believe this is a serious topic they should take the discussion elsewhere, otherwise an observer would be left to conclude that for them it is also only a hobby.
If you don't want to have this discussion, then by all means, don't have it. But encouraging others [i]not[/n] to have it because we're not experts in nano-energetic materials is ridiculous and pointless.

I find it amusing that this sub-forum has become a lightening rod for debunkers, yet suddenly the topic is no longer appropriate for JREF because we lack expertise? There's certainly a lot of bull that passes for science on both sides of this debate, however, Farrer, Harrit, Jones, et. al. have written this paper in an accessible way. If you think their paper contains unfounded conclusions, then this is your chance to demonstrate that.


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 08:15 AM   #396
jay howard
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 626
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since nobody can back up the claim that they were nanothermite, since it's been shown that they couldn't have had any significant effect if they had been nanothermite, and since the simple fact that they ignited at 430ļC is irrefutable proof that they cannot have remained unignited by the fires in the regions where the collapse initiated, asking for proof they were paint is the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof". It doesn't really matter what they were; they cannot possibly have played any significant part in the collapses of the Twin Towers, therefore they are irrelevant to any discussion of the causes of those collapses.

Dave
This is another attempt to say that since no one can explain how it was used, we can dismiss it.

What's interesting about this attempt this line of reasoning is that we all agree the WTC fell because of arson. No one here can meaningfully say that wasn't a case of arson. The only debate is the sources of energy involved.

Now that some very unusual highly energetic material was found, why should anyone interested not want to look into it?

What could be gained from not looking into it?

Why would someone even entertain that idea?

I don't know how the stuff was used. The authors of the paper don't know how it was used. That doesn't make it go away.


.
jay howard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 10:05 AM   #397
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Let me see, we have the following,

Buildings full of painted columns etc...collapses into huge pile. Thousands of people witness the jet airliners strike the buildings an hour or so prior to collapse. Years later, samples of alleged dust from GZ are submitted to the authors with a weak chain of custody record, at best, for analysis.

Now what do you think should be the focus of such an analysis?

(A) an unbias, scientific analysis of the dust contents, with ALL POSSIBLE contents ruled in or out,

OR

(B) a hunt for thermite?

You wanna talk unscientific, truther "scientists" wrote the book on that.

Funny how numerous other studies and analysis of the WTC dust have been done, and paint is mentioned as a component in many of them, yet never a mention of "thermite" or some "exothermic explosive/incidiary" or the like. Funny that.

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 11:25 AM   #398
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,258
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
Ryan, if you would like to have a real discussion about this, then we need to agree about basic premises.

Unless you found something wrong with the XEDS analysis of the post-MEK chip, then there is no way to claim that elemental Al was NOT found.


pg. 18 (my emphasis)

What have they done wrong that they cannot make this claim?


.
.
See http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=188

In short:

Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Given that we don't know anything about this chip prior to it's soaking in MEK then i don't know why it's in the paper.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 01:41 PM   #399
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
 
aggle-rithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 15,334
Originally Posted by jay howard View Post
So you too are a believer that MEK can cause a chemical reaction that can reduce aluminosilicates to Al and a Si compound?

Please, give me a science lesson that doesn't involve linking to a paper you've never read.


.
Even if you are somehow correct, and the paint chips are indeed thermite, you still have no convergence of evidence. All you have is a curiosity that doesn't fit into any coherent theory.

Unless you'd like to offer one. No? I didn't think so.
__________________
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.
aggle-rithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2010, 02:20 PM   #400
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by aggle-rithm View Post
Even if you are somehow correct, and the paint chips are indeed thermite, you still have no convergence of evidence. All you have is a curiosity that doesn't fit into any coherent theory.

Unless you'd like to offer one. No? I didn't think so.
According to Jones himself, the Thermite was most likely just used in the detonation fuses for more traditional explosives (See several threads on this suggestion he made on another forum as provided by email exchanges between Jones and Dr. Frank Greening about 1 year ago).

That said, given their obsession verging on insanity with this issue, given the investment in what little reputation the authors have in this, I would not doubt for a moment that they are capable not only of MANIPULATING the data, but actually FORGING/MANUFACTURING data to suite their hypothesis. At the very least the authors are guilty of (A) poor science, and (B) Severe (near blinding) bias.

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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 05:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.