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 , Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 1st March 2011, 02:00 AM   #321
Panoply_Prefect
Graduate Poster
 
Panoply_Prefect's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,075
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
So yes. Unbelievable isn't it? Yet P4T keeps on spouting. Yo! P4T you might want to check your links and truther sites before shouting here.
After some seven years debating truthers, they still manages to amaze me.
Panoply_Prefect 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 March 2011, 02:04 AM   #322
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Thanks for pointing out the study by Dr. Lioy et al.:
Characterization of the dust/smoke aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Center (WTC) in lower Manhattan after the collapse of the WTC September 11, 2001. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110: 703-714, 2002.

Fortunately his paper is Open Access and can be read on the web.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/f...9/ehp.02110703

Dr. Lioy, of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, warned of toxic materials in the WTC dust, and "these results support the need to have the interior of residences, buildings, and their respective HVAC systems professionally cleaned to reduce long-term residential risks before rehabitation."

Too bad that their study was not more widely publicized, to protect the health and lives of people who were told it was safe to work near Ground Zero. Lioy et al used techniques such as scanning electron microscopy, finding "volatile organic compounds" and other interesting components. I am a computer scientist, not a chemist, and will try try to email this study to someone like Dr. Jones or Harrit for comment. You may wish to do the same, or do your own experiment.

>Dr. Jones promised to make them available, but he has not done so
As you know, that would not be proper Chain Of Custody for the dust samples. They should come directly from the finders to you. If you would be interested in getting some, since you are a well established scientist, experienced in doing experiments, I'll grant $200 towards shipping, notary, and other expenses. Do you have access to a spectrometer at JPL? If so, I'll pay another $300 towards your expenses of writing a paper. Have it peer reviewed, and published in a journal of your choice (either open or subscription). A magnet will enable you to extract iron microspheres. Simply tell us what your equipment finds the red/grey chips to be. I realize that studies incur many more expenses, and hopefully others will join me in this research grant.

Last edited by TruthMakesPeace; 1st March 2011 at 02:41 AM.
TruthMakesPeace 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 March 2011, 02:28 AM   #323
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
That's not a peer reviewer, that's called a "co-author".
Griscom's credentials establish him as qualified to review the Active Thermitic paper. He has reviewed perhaps as many as 1000 papers. His review for the Active Thermitic paper might be considered abnormally long and detailed - which is a good thing.

"Typically referees are not selected from among the authors' close colleagues, students, or friends. (and they were none of these) Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors often invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. Indeed, for a number of journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also invited to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). In some disciplines, scholars listed in an "acknowledgments" section are not allowed to serve as referees (hence the occasional practice of using this section to disqualify potentially negative reviewers[citation needed])." And in some disciplines they are allowed to serve as referees. wiki link


Also, this study might be of interest to debunkers (and people not familiar with "referees" or the whole paper review process:

Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors
"Results : There were 788 reviews for 329 manuscripts. Review quality (mean difference in Review Quality Instrument score, −0.05; P=.27) did not differ significantly between author- and editor-suggested reviewers. The author suggested reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.66) or revise (odds ratio, 2.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.43-4.97). This difference was larger in the open reviews of BMJ than among the blinded reviews of other journals for acceptance (P=.02). Where author-and editor-suggested reviewers differed in their recommendations, the final editorial decision to acceptor reject a study was evenly balanced (50.9% of decisions consistent with the preferences of the author-suggested reviewers). Conclusions Author-and editor-suggested reviewers did not differ in the quality of their reviews, but author-suggested reviewers tended to make more favorable recommendations for publication. Editors can be confident that reviewers suggested by authors will complete adequate reviews of manuscripts, but should be cautious about relying on their recommendations for publication. -Link

Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial
Conclusions: Asking reviewers to consent to being identified to the author had no important effect on the quality of the review, the recommendation regarding publication, or the time taken to review, but it significantly increased the likelihood of reviewers declining to review. -Link

The Fed's View of Peer Review:
In general, an agency conducting a peer review of a highly influential scientific assessment must ensure that the peer review process is transparent by making available to the public the written charge to the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, the peer reviewers’ report(s), and the agency’s response to the peer reviewers’ report(s). ... This Bulletin requires agencies to adopt or adapt the committee selection policies[3] employed by the National Academy of Sciences(NAS). -The National Academies.


"It doesn't matter if it is blind, double blind, or open peer review, the SCIENCE still stands!

"What do you say to those who will say your association with Griscom means the peer-review process is tainted by the appearance of a conflict of interest?" I understand you and the other authors would not have been privy to TOCPJ's process for selecting reviewers; was Griscom one of those recommended to TOCPJ as being qualified to review the Active Thermitic paper? (If yes, what difference do you think it makes?)"

What conflict of interest? What political statement does the paper make or is it an expose of science? Did Griscom get funding from the paper?

The two studies I linked to and the Federal Governments own position on peer review PROVE that the association between an author and a reviewer is meaningless and does not taint the review when it comes to the science."¹

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 02:32 AM.
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 02:32 AM   #324
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Thanks for pointing out the study by Dr. Lioy et al.:
Characterization of the dust/smoke aerosol that settled east of the World Trade Center (WTC) in lower Manhattan after the collapse of the WTC September 11, 2001. Environmental Health Perspectives, 110: 703-714, 2002.

Fortunately his paper is Open Access and can be read on the web.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/f...9/ehp.02110703

Dr. Loy, of the Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute of New Jersey, warned of toxic materials in the WTC dust, and "these results support the need to have the interior of residences, buildings, and their respective HVAC systems professionally cleaned to reduce long-term residential risks before rehabitation."

Too bad that their study was not more widely publicized, to protect the health and lives of people who were told it was safe to work near Ground Zero. Lioy et al used techniques such as scanning electron microscopy, finding "volatile organic compounds" and other interesting components. I am a computer scientist, not a chemist, and will try try to email this study to someone like Dr. Jones or Harrit for comment. You may wish to do the same.

>Dr. Jones promised to make them available, but he has not done so
As you know, that would not be proper Chain Of Custody for the dust samples. They should come directly from the finders to you. If you would be interested in getting some, since you are a well established scientist, I'll grant $200 towards shipping, notary, and other expenses. Do you have access to a spectrometer at JPL? If so, I'll pay another $300 towards your expenses of writing a paper. Have it peer reviewed, and published in a journal of your choice (either open or subscription). A magnet will enable you to extract iron microspheres. Tell us what you find the red/grey chips to be. I realize that studies incur many more expenses, and hopefully others will join me in this research grant.
Wow. I've just read that paper. They sure did do a thorough analysis which included many techniques.

No thermite though. Funny that. But they did find paint particles in all of their samples. How weird; paint but no thermite, who'da thunk it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:36 AM   #325
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Why don't you publish your results Sunstealer?
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 02:37 AM   #326
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Well that is strike one.

Try reading what I actually said - not what you want to think I said.
"So I cut to the chase - there was no demolition..." -ozeco41

can you find the formal fallacy now?

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 02:40 AM.
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 02:44 AM   #327
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: 25,112
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
The equipment used to study the WTC dust is objective. It gives the same results regardless of the opinions of the person running the equipment, such as what chemicals are present, and in what proportions.
And those results demonstrate that the material is not thermite. This is obvious to anyone with scientific training and objectivity who actually looks at the results and checks them. Harrit's conclusions contradict his data, rather than being drawn from it.

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 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 March 2011, 02:48 AM   #328
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Why don't you publish your results Sunstealer?
Why should he?

Harrit and Jones won't publish theirs.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 March 2011, 02:48 AM   #329
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
ug. I promised myself that I wouldn't reply to this sort of nonsense.
Here's just one link that oughta tide you over (but most likely won't for whatever cockamamie reason you might come up with): A peer-reviewer of the "Active Thermitic Materials" paper identifies himself
I've just started reading the ".peer review"


Quote:
By these means they determined the red material to contain (1) faceted grains consistently 100 nm (0.1 micrometer) in size which are largely ferric-iron oxide, (2) metallic aluminum in the form of platelets approximately 40 nm thick and about 1 micrometer broad, and (3) a binder matrix consisting of silicon dioxide and some sort of organic material.
And it's wrong!! It doesn't even tally with the paper!

Page 15.

Quote:
The consistently rhombic-shaped, faceted appearance of
the iron-rich grains strongly suggests that they are crystalline.
From these data, it is determined that the red/gray chips
from different WTC dust samples are extremely similar in
their chemical and structural makeup. It is also shown that
within the red layer there is an intimate mixing of the Fe-rich
grains
and Al/Si plate-like particles and that these particles
are embedded in a carbon-rich matrix.
So he gets #1 correct but says mainly when it's clear that it's all because of the morphology.

#2 he gets wrong because he claims metallic aluminium which suggest aluminium only and no silicon.

#3 he gets wrong because he claims the binder is SiO2 AND some sort of organic material. Well SiO2 is sand/silica/quartz (SiO4 structure). We would expect to see a 4th particle which by definition is not part of the binder, but we don't!! It's not in the paper.

Some reviewer. I expect as I read further more mistakes will cometo light.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 02:52 AM   #330
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
Wow. I've just read that paper. They sure did do a thorough analysis which included many techniques.

No thermite though. Funny that. But they did find paint particles in all of their samples. How weird; paint but no thermite, who'da thunk it.
Of course the paper doesn't once mention XthermXte or explosive materials (or motivation to seek them out).

"The scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements. " -link

No complete analysis of elements. Failure to look for explosives. What a "thorough" paper this is. But then again very few people thought to look for explosive materials back in 2002 (and 2001 for that matter).

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 03:01 AM.
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 02:52 AM   #331
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: 25,112
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
The paper has been undisputed - perhaps because the conclusions are correct. If you strongly disagree with the science in the paper then write a rebuttal or get an e-mail exchange going with one of the several writers. Maybe they can help address your "no it didn't" concerns.
Since the journal doesn't exist any more, there's no point replying to the journal; in any case, as Ryan Mackey found out, they charge for printing rebuttals. I see no point in e-mailing the writers, since they're too incompetent even to understand the law of conservation of energy. Since there's no danger of anybody competent ever taking this paper seriously, and it's no longer available anyway, there's nothing left to dispute. But, no, the paper is not undisputed, because the conclusions are not just incorrect, but absurd. It's just not significant enough to trouble a real journal with.

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 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 March 2011, 02:55 AM   #332
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Since the journal doesn't exist any more, there's no point replying to the journal; in any case, as Ryan Mackey found out, they charge for printing rebuttals. I see no point in e-mailing the writers, since they're too incompetent even to understand the law of conservation of energy. Since there's no danger of anybody competent ever taking this paper seriously, and it's no longer available anyway, there's nothing left to dispute. But, no, the paper is not undisputed, because the conclusions are not just incorrect, but absurd. It's just not significant enough to trouble a real journal with.

Dave
fee based open access journals are fairly common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_ac...ccess_journals
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 02:59 AM   #333
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Wow it gets even better.

Quote:
2Al + Fe2O3 --> Al2O3 + 2Fe (molten iron), ΔH = - 853.5 kJ/mole......

The energy release (ΔH =-853.5 kJ/mole) is about the same as that for burning pure carbon in pure oxygen. But the big difference is that in the case of thermite, no gaseous oxygen at all is required for the thermite reaction. Thermite can burn and release this amount of energy in a vacuum, under water ...or even buried deeply in non-inflammable dust. All it needs is a heat source to ignite it.
So why did he not spot that performing the DSC in air is going to give a spurious result? Remember this

Quote:
(3) a binder matrix consisting of silicon dioxide and some sort of organic material.
What is an organic material mostly made of? Yep Carbon.

So he says that the thermite reaction gives out roughly the same energy as pure carbon burning in air, but has not spotted the error of performing the DSC in an oxygen environment when he himself has already said that the binder material is organic and contains Carbon and puts out similar energy!

Priceless!! In fact it's unbelievable that someone who should know this stuff misses it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:01 AM   #334
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Of course the paper doesn't once mention XthermXte or explosives.

"The scientists did not broach the issue of whether the dust showed evidence of explosive residues. Their report does not appear to have sufficient detail to use it as a basis for drawing any conclusions about the question of explosives. All their disclosures of the dust composition are partial, addressing questions about the levels of heavy metals and toxic hydrocarbons, but failing to provide even complete compositional analysis of elements. "

No complete analysis of elements. Failure to look for explosives. What a "thorough" paper this is. But then again very few people thought to look for explosive materials back in 2002 (and 2001 for that matter).
Why do you want to analyse for elements when what you are looking for are compounds? Elemental analysis on a dust sample is completely pointless. It will determine nothing of any worth whatsoever.

They didn't specifically look for explosives, but their methodology would have found those explosive compounds regardless because of the analysis techniques and methods used. They got dust, put it in a machine, which gave determinate results, none of which were explosives. No explosives were present QED.

Last edited by Sunstealer; 1st March 2011 at 03:04 AM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 03:04 AM   #335
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
They got dust, put it in a machine, which gave results, none of which were explosives.
Sounds very thorough
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 03:04 AM   #336
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Of course the paper doesn't once mention XthermXte or explosive materials (or motivation to seek them out).
No explosive seismic signatures were detected on 9/11.

it's physically impossible for explosives to have played a role in the buildings collapses.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 March 2011, 03:07 AM   #337
Patriots4Truth
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
No explosive seismic signatures were detected on 9/11.

it's physically impossible for explosives to have played a role in the buildings collapses.
hint: cutter charges

(and now it's late and I'm going to bed)

Last edited by Patriots4Truth; 1st March 2011 at 03:09 AM.
Patriots4Truth 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 March 2011, 03:23 AM   #338
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Of ... then again very few people thought to look for explosive materials back in 2002 (and 2001 for that matter).
The FBI did. Darn, you make up lies as you go. Why do you make it up as you go? You sure are knowledge free on all 911 issues, why is that?

There were zero deaths due to blasts, why is that?

No burns due to thermite.

There were zero blast effects on the steel; why is that?

No fused iron on steel from thermite.

There were zero sound from explosives; why is that?

No piles of thermite products.

There was zero evidence of explosives on 911; why is that?

No evidence of thermite, save in the minds of 911 truth based on delusions and lies.


What if they found chocolate chip cookies, they would be claiming some new super explosive was found, or butter, gee whiz these Jones and his morons of CTers have no clue what happen on 911. Look up energy! Get to a physics teacher, take physics for presidents, hurry!

Which one is Thermite? Hint:Al/Fe2O3... Why do the chips they tested no match the energy of Thermite? They are no thermite! BINGO

This is from data in the paper proves the samples were not thermite. Got chemistry?
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 March 2011, 03:31 AM   #339
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
hint: cutter charges

(and now it's late and I'm going to bed)
No explosive seismic signatures were detected on 9/11.

It's physically impossible for explosives to have played a role in the buildings collapses.

(Hint: a cutter charge is a shaped charge that is designed to rend structural members with as little energy expenditure as possible. Since structural members are connected to the pilings that run into the buildings foundation, cutter charges are also the most efficient means of generating seismic signatures with minimal amounts of explosives.)

Last edited by Sword_Of_Truth; 1st March 2011 at 03:38 AM.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 March 2011, 04:18 AM   #340
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: 25,112
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
fee based open access journals are fairly common.
Ones that allow circumvention of the peer review process on payment of that fee are, thankfully, now a little less common.

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 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 March 2011, 07:34 AM   #341
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,691
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
hint: cutter charges

(and now it's late and I'm going to bed)
I hope you slept well. When you awake, try to find evidence for the "many tonnes of explosives" that Niels Harrit believes felled the Salomon Brothers building.
carlitos 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 March 2011, 08:07 AM   #342
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
hint: cutter charges

(and now it's late and I'm going to bed)
I recently watched a program about the history of explosives, I think it was on the BBC 4 channel. Two parts were relevant to the whole explosives at ground zero.

First was a description of exactly what an explosion is. Many truthers don't know this because you can't have silent explosives.

Second was a discussion about shaped charges and experiment using a shaped charge to cut an H beam by some old fossil who always turns up on explosives shows.

I'll have to do some googling to see if I can find it because it shows clearly what a cut steel H beam looks like after demolition and also shows how LOUD the explosion was.

Got it - "Explosions: How We Shook the World" was the TV program.

Part 4 of 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMCht...eature=related

Skip to 4:32. At 5.00 we get a close up of what a cutter charge leaves as evidence on the steel it's cut. Nothing like that was ever found nor is there any evidence for the multiple BANGS that would have accompanied the demolition.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 08:21 AM   #343
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Why don't you publish your results Sunstealer?
To what ends?

Sunstealer: Hi, I'd like to submit a paper rebutting a non-peer reviewed paper that appeared in a vanity journal.
Journal: OK. What was the subject of the paper?
Sunstealer: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.
Journal: Well seeing as none our readers would have read it and the fact that it's obviously rubbish I don't think it would benefit our journal or our readership.
Sunstealer: Thought so, sorry to trouble you.
Journal: Perhaps you could make a youtube video.
Sunstealer: Hey! Enough of that.

The thing is P4T it doesn't matter where the rebuttal is published or posted, truthers simply won't believe a word of it. They didn't when they read the JREF thread so why would they do so in a peer reviewed paper? [which by the way would mean the reviewers would have to read (and review) the Harrit et al paper too thus negating the point]
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2011, 08:31 AM   #344
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Why respond to Niels et al.'s paper? Perhaps:
As Sunstealer, Mr. Mackey, Dave Rogers and numerable other people with degrees in science and engineering have commented, there is absolutely nothing in it for academics. To whit:
Quote:
1.) To shoot down truthers. God knows that there is a lot of debunkers on the internet that like to at least try to shoot down truthers.
Despite their insistence otherwise, truthers are a loosely collected group of idiots. The Church of Trutherism is a scam perpetrated by people with no morals on people with no critical thinking skills. Why should I concern myself with the way idiots spend their money?
Quote:
2.) Resume material. I shouldn't have to ask why someone would want resume material.
Speaking as an experienced researcher, I can assure you that no papers published in open access journals appear on my CV. I have one paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, one in Analytical Chemistry and one in the Journal of Cement and Concrete Research. Those three, among the 8 I've published as first author (more than 20 as a co-author) are on my CV. Non of my CV papers are rebuttals. Only a researcher with very little research experience would need a rebuttal paper in an open access journal to bulk up the CV.
Quote:
9.) Students, teachers and/or scientists who are familiar with the paper, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) and/or differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) might enjoy making a project out of WTC dust analysis.
10.) Original conspirators of 9/11 might want to silence "truth support"/propaganda
Regarding the last two, speaking as a scientist who is familiar with SEM-EDS, I can assure you that I'm not even mildly interested in doing this project. The reason is: I know it's a waste of time. I don't care what they find in the dust, the first thing the researchers need to prove is that you can do particle analysis of dust from a building collapse and prove that the building was destroyed with thermite. To do that, you need two identical buildings, one which will collapse due to fire alone and one which will collapse due to fire and thermite charges. Then you need a random sampling of dust from both collapses, from which you perform double blind studies of the compositions of the dusts. With those data sets, you can use multivariate statistics to determine what the true differences are between the n-dimensional compositional data sets. If a true difference exists, then you've proved that the method is reliable.

That's step 0. Prove the method is reliable. Without that, everything else is hokum.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 March 2011, 08:36 AM   #345
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
grandmastershek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,446
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
To what ends? [...]
The thing is P4T it doesn't matter where the rebuttal is published or posted, truthers simply won't believe a word of it. They didn't when they read the JREF thread so why would they do so in a peer reviewed paper? [which by the way would mean the reviewers would have to read (and review) the Harrit et al paper too thus negating the point]
Indeed...truthers dismiss the dozens of journals corroborating collapse due to fire out of hand and the approval of the ASCE & the NFPA, but gladly take the faux academics of "the scholars" & the list of non-experts at AE911Truth. All a rebuttal would do is create another laundry list of excuses.
__________________
For as the NWO are higher than the people, so are their ways higher than your ways, and their thoughts than your thoughts. (A amalgam of Isaiah 55:9 & truther logic)
grandmastershek 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 March 2011, 09:02 AM   #346
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
His own data proves that they found "active thermitic materials" - hence the title of the paper. If anyone doesn't like the results of his tests or wishes to challenge the paper then they are encouraged to publish a paper doing just that.
I know that I am late getting to this... but I will reply anyways.

no it doesn't. His own data suggests that he needs better methodology, he needs to eliminate confounds, he needs to have a better sample of the original materials, he needs a better control and he needs to conduct his "experiments" in an neutral atmosphere to demonstrate tha there is any "thermetic" materials which are exothermic.

once he cleans up the methodological mess, then we can talk about his data. Until he does, it is psuedo science AT BEST.

Secondly, his "data" wasn't "published" in any scientific sense. It was a vanity journal which would publish your shopping list for $700. That is vastly different from any decent peer reviewed journal. There are hundreds of them, in dozens of languages... and they choose one that is a joke.

Do you really not know the history of this "paper?" Really?


Quote:

The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). -Niels et al

You do realize that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to get a hold of these instruments and that many scientists use these instruments quite regularly?
And yet it must take a 'rocket scientist' in order to do any form of proper methodology... because Niels et al bolluxed it up so badly.

Fix the methodology, and then we can talk about the "data." Until then it is just BS.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
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 March 2011, 09:04 AM   #347
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
Yes the paper is getting to be old. Almost 2 years since the paper was published and no one else has written a paper that refutes the presence of active thermitic bi-layered chips consisting of a red layer that is an engineered nano-composite substance.
Thats because it isn't a "paper" in any scientific sense. It is a methodological disaster that is 'published' in a vanity journal.

No self respecting scientist would bother to refute utter ******** like this. It is like there are no scientists who are refuting "flat earther papers" or any scientists refuting "creationist papers."

Try again. (maybe take a research methods class or an experimental design course... it will help your confusion.)
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)
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 March 2011, 09:19 AM   #348
TruthersLie
This space for rent.
 
TruthersLie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,715
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
hint: cutter charges

(and now it's late and I'm going to bed)
[hint cutter chargers are explosive which transfer down the columns into the ground and would be detected.]

[double hint: try again with facts, figures and evidence.]

Edited by Rat:  Edited for civility. Let's keep it polite, please.
__________________
"There are submissions to the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but that's about as convincing as submissions to the Journal of Intelligent Design Studies." –Noam Chomsky (and this can be said of ANY and all twoof papers)

Last edited by Rat; 1st March 2011 at 03:30 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 March 2011, 10:21 AM   #349
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Patriots4Truth View Post
hint: cutter charges

(and now it's late and I'm going to bed)
And the "cutter charges" would be placed where on the structure?

guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm
Animal 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 March 2011, 10:31 AM   #350
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
And the "cutter charges" would be placed where on the structure?

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/godfrey.htm
Fixed the link for you.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 March 2011, 10:33 AM   #351
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth View Post
Fixed the link for you.
The system will not let me post a full link yet.
Animal 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 March 2011, 10:37 AM   #352
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,495
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
The system will not let me post a full link yet.
Make one more post.
Sword_Of_Truth 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 March 2011, 11:05 AM   #353
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
If it wasn't published, how do you know about the study? Published means to make public. An open journal is the best way, since it is free for people to read. You are so focused on the means through which the study was made public. How about your ideas about specific aspects of the study itself?
TruthMakesPeace 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 March 2011, 11:12 AM   #354
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Please specify. You throw out general terms such as "better methodology" - better in what specific way? "better sample" - do you propose cherry picking samples, or objectively taking the samples as they come? "better control" - this was not a comparison type of experiment, but a chemical identification. "neutral atmosphere" - what difference does a researcher's thinking make to a spectrometer?
TruthMakesPeace 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 March 2011, 11:13 AM   #355
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 17,691
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
How about your ideas about specific aspects of the study itself?
Those were crap, too.
carlitos 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 March 2011, 11:15 AM   #356
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
>It was a vanity journal which would publish your shopping list for $700.
OK you're on with this bet. Submit your shopping list to the Bentham Open Chemistry and Physics Journal, and if it is accepted and published, I'll pay your $700 fee.
TruthMakesPeace 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 March 2011, 11:15 AM   #357
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,257
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
If it wasn't published, how do you know about the study? Published means to make public. An open journal is the best way, since it is free for people to read. You are so focused on the means through which the study was made public. How about your ideas about specific aspects of the study itself?
We've all given our analyses of the flaws inherent in the Jones/Harrit study quite a while ago:Those are posts by member Sunstealer, but it's the threads themselves I'm pointing out. The discussion of the merits or lack thereof of the Bentham thermite paper has already occurred.

It would be a good idea for you to do a forum search for such topics before posting.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus 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 March 2011, 11:17 AM   #358
TruthMakesPeace
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 291
Specify

Specify means list specifics.
TruthMakesPeace 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 March 2011, 11:23 AM   #359
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,368
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Specify means list specifics.
There a whole lot of specifics in the links to posts and threads that ElMondoHummus posted
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead 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 March 2011, 11:32 AM   #360
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,246
Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
If it wasn't published, how do you know about the study? Published means to make public.
Good point. Every tweet is published in exactly the same sense that Harrit's paper was published.

Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
An open journal is the best way, since it is free for people to read.
Another advantage of open journals over the kind of journals found in university libraries is that open journals are archival: No web page has ever disappeared from the World-Wide Web. You can prove that to yourself by visiting
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
You are so focused on the means through which the study was made public. How about your ideas about specific aspects of the study itself?
The study itself was rot.

Originally Posted by cicorp View Post
Please specify. You throw out general terms such as "better methodology" - better in what specific way? "better sample" - do you propose cherry picking samples, or objectively taking the samples as they come? "better control" - this was not a comparison type of experiment, but a chemical identification. "neutral atmosphere" - what difference does a researcher's thinking make to a spectrometer?
The highlighted question is answered by the last bullet below.
  • better methodology: a methodology that could distinguish
    • samples that burn in the presence of oxygen from samples that burn without external oxygen
    • elemental aluminum from bound aluminum
    • paint from thermite
  • better sample: more representative, better provenance, more material so it can be shared freely with other researchers
  • better control: chemical identification involves comparing the observed results with the corresponding results for known materials
    • example: if you're going to use spectrographic and calorimetric analyses to assert that something is thermite, then you ought to compare its spectra and calorimetry with known samples of thermite
  • neutral atmosphere: an atmosphere that does not contain oxygen or other highly reactive gases
Despite their many methodological errors, the authors of that paper concluded that their material does not look or act like any thermite they or anyone they know has ever seen. From that fact, they concluded that their material was double top secret thermite.

(You'll have to trust me on that, because the paper itself is no longer available online.)

You may call that "thinking". I call it foolishness.
W.D.Clinger 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 06:12 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.