|
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. |
8th April 2009, 11:25 AM | #921 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
|
|
8th April 2009, 11:27 AM | #922 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
|
many people wrote rebuttals to the NIST report, and they allowed only a very short window to accept such rebuttals, once the report was made public.
Lets see if anybody on the planet scientifically rebutts this nano thermite paper.I would think people would be crawling out of the woodwork to do so. |
8th April 2009, 11:27 AM | #923 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
|
Sorry, the paper offers no political theory about the findings which is even more reason to publish a scientific rebuttal to the paper in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Frankly, I don't care if they are CT'ers or OCT'ers, let the science stand where it may.
I think we can agree there should be no politics in science. |
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times |
|
8th April 2009, 11:29 AM | #924 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 824
|
|
8th April 2009, 11:33 AM | #925 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Interesting - we also know that rusting is an exothermic reaction (that truthers means it gives off heat) and therefore is an increase in energy. They observed a matrix of a Carbon based material (most likely some form of binder) in the SEM photos and EDS. Could this also ignite?
|
8th April 2009, 11:33 AM | #926 | ||||
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,906
|
Hey
|
||||
8th April 2009, 11:34 AM | #927 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,050
|
Please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal...
For the sake of science, please publish your findings in a scientific peer-reviewed journal along with the description of sample dust you used to arrive at your findings instead of photographs. I look forward to viewing your evidence in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in the form of electron images, optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) results. And for the sake of science, please also list the methods, materials,and conclusions you use when producing your paper as well. Thanks! |
__________________
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John SKilling-Head Structural Engineer WTC-1993 Seattle Times |
|
8th April 2009, 11:38 AM | #928 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
|
You are arguing from authority, not from science. Did you not learn your Galileo when you were young?
The NIST report does indeed have many qualified scientists. But their report has not been peer reviewed by referees, nor have they released their computer models, so it is impossible at this time to subject them to peer review. the NIST report is just that, a government report, nothing more. Also, NIST is suspected in the 9/11 cover-up. Real science regarding 9/11 should not be left to the very people who are suspected. |
8th April 2009, 11:40 AM | #929 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Since the chemical composition of these chips is fairly well established, it can be calculated what the energy potential is (as Mr. Mackey did earlier) http://www.internationalskeptics.com...66#post4588566 and given the very thin coating of this material it is irrelevant whether it's call 'nanothermite', 'paint' or whatever. That's a moot point. You can't heat and destroy a steel beam with the stuff. It would be no more effective than burning paint. Worse, you don't need to rebut Jones' paper to understand the impossibility of trying to paint this stuff onto structural steel throughout both towers.... anybody with more than one brain cell can see that. Do you really think this needs a full-on scientific rebuttal to be viewed skeptically? |
8th April 2009, 11:41 AM | #930 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
Why are you drank the Kool-aid followers challenged in science. Here is Jones cherry picking his evidence by ignoring the other elements. Jones delusion is funny as hell when you take the time to be skeptical, or exercise your own mind. Why does Jones act like a moron? Funny you fall for his insanity.
Quote:
If that is not the silliest ideas, then your post supporting Jones’ delusions is. Keep drinking the Kool-aid from the cult of Jones Thermite with calcium for healty bones. You have to pay to have Jones' tripe published but seeing the insanity is priceless. |
8th April 2009, 11:42 AM | #931 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
You don't know what XEDS stands for nor do you understand how it works. How much SEM experience do you have Roundhead? I am going to bet 0 hours. If you knew what this method is capable of then you would know that you cannot determine compounds only the presence of elements. If you'd bother to read my posts you'd have seen that I mention this atleast 3 times and another poster with SEM experience confirms this. You have to use the semi-quantitative EDS/EDX/XEDS software in order to get a rough read out of what compounds (not elements it's difficult I know) are present.
This is why you use a different technique. For example XRD would be good in this instance or FTIR for organic compounds. It's blatantly obvious that you don't know the difference so click on the links and learn something new today. The guy you quote also doesn't know the difference. |
8th April 2009, 11:43 AM | #932 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
Enough about "nano" being used as a crutch! How many times are we going to have to beat this into the ground?? Nanothermite is thermite, it's just been processed to a finer degree! Nothing - I say again, nothing - about processing changes the energetic property of the reactants!
Does "nano"wood ground to a sandlike state have any more joules/calories/BTU/whatever per gram than wood planks or logs? Does "nano"gasoline have any more heat per unit of mass because it's in smaller drops than gasoline in a cup? No! So why in God's name do we try to handwave the energy differences away with that stupid, ridiculous "It's nanothermite" argument? Once again: The energy available in a ferrous-oxide/aluminum reduction-oxidation reaction is the same regardless of how fine the individual reactants are ground! What about the fact that this mysterious "nano" property is supposed to change the basic energy available in the redox reaction? And what about the fact that it's some "nano" material is supposed to change the activation energy? Does anyone here advocating this paper even know what "activation energy" is without clicking on either of these links?? Waving the prefix "nano" around like a talisman does not hide the fact that the substance Jones et. al. has tested is not thermite. It's not "nano" thermite, it's not "super" thermite. He's not seeing a rust-aluminum redox reaction! That's basic! When a liquid freezes at some different temperature than 32oF (0oC), do we try to pass it off as "super-water"? Or do we do reach basic intelligent conclusion and realize we're not dealing with water?? Gaaaaah... I can't believe that people are trying to handwave these differences as being due to "nano" thermite. Apples and oranges, NO. They are NOT! |
__________________
"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." |
|
8th April 2009, 11:43 AM | #933 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Hey, Swing Dangler, I trust you've been giving the same advise to all those truther websites who jumped to CD conclusions BEFORE this paper was published by Bentham?
I just know you did that. After all, we wouldn't want the 9/11 truth movement to be unscientific, would we? They might come to erroneous conclusions! Nice to know people like you are keeping things honest. good for you. |
8th April 2009, 11:49 AM | #934 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Another valid question.
The big problem they have is that they cannot distinguish the source of the aluminium present because of the method they use - EDS. The pre-DSC sample will almost certainly contain alumina in some form. The difficulty will be ascertaining how much is there in the first place and how much post DSC testing. However, I would expect to see clear photomicrographs with accompanying EDS on separate alumina particles because as you say this is evidence of the thermite reaction. They haven't done this. They managed it for "iron-microspheres". In all honesty I actually think that the source of these spheres in the WTC dust is burnt paint. |
8th April 2009, 11:52 AM | #935 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
Swing, swing is back, back again....
Hey Swing, let me let you in on a little tip, in "science" you don't necessarily have to repeat a test! You can take the data that the proponent of a theory publishes, and analyze that data, and using that same data, point out where they have gone wrong. Am I going to fast here, Swing? Say, looking at the data that Jones uses, I notice he doesn't publish the results from his tests in 2007. Now what do you think about that Swing? Hey Swing, we are taking bets on what type of paint jones tested. Given Ryan's involvement, we are guessing "water" colors (snicker). |
8th April 2009, 11:52 AM | #936 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Don't you know it's a proven scientific fact that nanothermite ignites at 430c?
That's the difference! The jets were used to ignite the thermite paint, which then quickly burned right through the buildings down to the ground. You can see the nanosmoke pouring out all the way down. That's why the towers collapsed almost instantly after the plane impacts, and faster than freefall speed. |
8th April 2009, 11:52 AM | #937 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
|
What i see going on here is another religion.
The arrogant claims of, and self given labels of "truth, truther, the only ones that know the truth, etc"
The attempts to do end runs around proper established scientific methods. Automatic infallibility, without any verification, to anyone that is in or agrees with the "truther" side in any way. The lame mental gymnastic apologetics to attempt too cover up truck sized holes. The false dicotomy of only two choices. With or against. The demonizing of everyone that isn't in the "truther" cult. The lack of reason, logic, or thinking, instead choosing blind faith. The leaders are never wrong about anything. The arrogant superiority complex of being a "truther". The claims of expertise if everything and anything while dismissing the vast majority of real experts that totally disagree. The quickness to insult and dismiss anyone that doesn't just immediately agree with everything and anything they propose. The sectarian divides within the cult. All claiming to be the only ones that have it right. The constant snake oil salesman games to convince people through trickery and emotion. The childish level of their behaviour and mentality. The delusions of grandeur. The veiled threats to everyone that isn't in their cult, "you'll be sorry one day" The backbone of fear and paranoia. The lack of a grasp on reality. The constant lying and fabrications. (this one really bugs me) They propose some of the most ridiculous nonsense i have ever heard. I can go on and on... This all looks to me like nothing more than religion repackaged and resold in the 21st century... Yet they seriously think they can fool us all with these pathetic tactics... |
8th April 2009, 12:00 PM | #938 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
|
|
8th April 2009, 12:01 PM | #939 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Dodge noted.
I see that the time between my post and your response was 5 minutes. Did you actually manage to open the document and read the entire thing in 5 minutes? You did eh? But you couldn't find the answer to my question could you? Nope like the dog your are to Jones the master, you can't even be bothered to actually read his paper you just spout regurgitated nonsense. I'll spell it out for you and any other brain dead moron why it is important to have the information that I ask for. Jones claims they tested paint in order to rule out paint as a source for the chips. He does not state what paint he is comparing the chips to, so without that information his test is void. There is absolutely no way in a million years I or any other person producing a legitimate paper would ever get away with that colossal mistake before the paper was published. It would be spotted because there should be a reference (that's those little number superscript numbers and corresponding references at the end of the paper) to either a data table and or manufacturers information sheet. It's plainly obvious that people like roundhead and other truthers have very little experience with scientific papers or what is required when writing one. At the moment we don't need a peer review rebuttal - there are so many elementary mistakes in the paper that it's going to take alot of time to correlate them all. Instead of being such a puppet why don't you actually bother to go back to the start of this thread and read the posts (not the bickering) that point out some of these errors which are backed up by alternate sources? |
8th April 2009, 12:03 PM | #940 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
8th April 2009, 12:03 PM | #941 |
Thinker
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 184
|
It appears that Dr. Greening is of the impression that the XEDS spectrum in Figure 14 "Is" from material also containing primer paint but is clearly quite different to the material that gave the Figure 6 and 7 spectra.
TAM has made some good points in regard to the amounts of zinc. So I'm curious as to how Dr. Greening is sure there is a deference, is he basing his opinion on just the zinc or is there any thing else that stands out in http://www.tnemec.com/resources/product/msds/m10v.pdf that I'm missing. For example do the Flash, boiling, or explosive properties listed in the MSDS tell us anything new? In your opinion do you, after seeing the MSDS for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer, think the red/gray chips are paint or is it some other material? Sorry for all the questions and thanks for your time/sharing you expertise. |
8th April 2009, 12:06 PM | #942 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
8th April 2009, 12:10 PM | #943 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
well Red, he is fairly frustrated with the fact that just about every truther under the sun has coming crawling back from what ever rock they were hiding under to spout off nonsense about something that not only do they not understand, they have not bothered to even read the thread.
Hey Red, where does Jones say what type of paint he tested, and more importantly, where are the results from 2007??? Jones is leading you sheep right into a buzzsaw. |
8th April 2009, 12:14 PM | #944 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
Exactly.
Why are truthers so stupid and assume the only way you can refute something is to do your own tests. The great thing about this paper is the data that is clearly displayed on public view. They will no doubt have other spectra and photos, but ofcourse there is limited space for a paper. If people actually bothered to look at Fig 2 with an objective mind and if they actually knew what thermite was "nano" or not they would know that the two do not correlate. They would also note the scale in the bottom right hand corner and work out approximate thickness's. The mind might start to work and throw up the anomaly: how can approximately 20 microns of thermite melt steel 5000 times it's own thickness (for a 5mm thick) I know it's hard because everyone has problems with scale when looking at SEM images - it's hard to get it into your head exactly how small things are when magnified 50,000 times. Here is a mm to micron (µm) converter. Play around with it to see just how big these sample thickness's are compared with the macro world. http://www.convertunits.com/from/mm/to/micron |
8th April 2009, 12:17 PM | #945 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
|
|
8th April 2009, 12:17 PM | #946 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
8th April 2009, 12:24 PM | #947 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
SO it took another paper by Jones, the first bit of joy the truther have had in a year or more, to bring Swing out of the shadows.
All the more sweet when Jones is proven to be wrong, and a charlatan, and an incredibly poor (or at least extremely bias to the point of making him behave poorly) scientist. TAM |
8th April 2009, 12:25 PM | #948 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
RedIbis, can you explain to me how red chips were discovered in 100% of the four samples Jones had in 2007?
|
8th April 2009, 12:28 PM | #949 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,883
|
How much do they really believe Jones?
As i'm sure many of us know, Stephen Jones is the same guy that also wrote: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"
I take it since Jones is so infallible and his credibility is (trying to hold a straight face) unquestionable, that these works of his, in which he claims to have archeological evidence of Jesus visiting the Americas, are also quite popular and accepted completely by the "truthers"? How many of them accept that? But they are on a quest for "the truth"? Ya... sure... |
8th April 2009, 12:30 PM | #950 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
8th April 2009, 12:31 PM | #951 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
How much paint would be necessary?
Dr. Greening does a quick calc of the boundry (maximum) temperature rise for a box column with a 100-micron coating of what ever it is that Jones and Co. are on about here:
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/ac...-15.html#p2605 He gets 8 deg C, but there are a number of factors that would reduce that, because clearly every Joule will not be transferred to the steel. For one, it takes TIME to heat steel and a thin layer of thermite "burns" very quickly. The other is that energy would invariably go into gas expansion. So, if you wanted to attain a temperature of > 400 deg C, you would probably need a coating at least 10mm thick. We're talking cookies not chips. I wonder if they found any of those bad boys...(not really). It would only be necessary to do this on one floor, but then the problem is getting the radio controlled airplane to hit the right floor. |
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil |
|
8th April 2009, 12:33 PM | #952 |
Muse
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 974
|
Galileo since you aren't a native speaker your reading comprehension erroe was understandable. I don't believe Bentham ever published anything by a Nobel laureate, they only claim to be ENDORSED by 7 of them. Most of those endorsements were for traditional journals put out by Bentham which don't charge authors for publication. IIRC 1 or 2 were for the concept of open publishing but didn't mention the company by name, this didn't stop them from counting them as endorsements.
As for NIST's models as has been explained more than once they only run on super computors not PC's or even Macs IIRC they have offer to make the models available to people with the requisite computing capacity. Their report wasn't peer reviewed because it wasn't a journal article, Several articles supporting the collapse theory have been published in ESTABLISHED scientific journals that DON'T charge their authors fees. |
8th April 2009, 12:36 PM | #953 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
So what we have are:
7-8 year old samples, with no valid chain of custody, and no details about their storage over those 8 years. Chips found within those samples that produce a spectral pattern that could easily be in keeping with any number of paints. Chips found that look remarkably like paint chips from the tnemec primer used on the beams of the WTC. Heat testing done on the samples, and one type of paint, for which no details are given in terms of the type, chemical make up, etc... And from this, this testing with a horrible lack of control testing, a horrible lack of evidence detail in terms of chain of custody and storage, we are suppose take the results as what???? interesting? ok. I tell you what I see. I see a man pushing himself as a quality scientist, who along with the others "scientists" he has dragged along, went looking for a particular chemical, and ignored, or made a minimal effort to investigate, all other possibilities. That is BAD SCIENCE 101. TAM |
8th April 2009, 12:37 PM | #954 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Mr. Urich, Dr. Jones has stated publicly that the towers fell too quickly to be simple gravitational collapse, so it would have required doping the whole structure with thermite paint, by implication. He argued this point in a debate with Leslie Robertson, after Robertson stated his opinion that, as soon as the collapse began, nothing could have stopped it from continuing all the way down. Jones vehemently disagreed arguing that the collapse may actually have stopped if not for the further removal of structure. Jones may change his tune of course. |
8th April 2009, 12:39 PM | #955 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,282
|
|
__________________
"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." |
|
8th April 2009, 12:41 PM | #956 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
|
|
__________________
"My father would womanize, he would drink, he would make outrageous claims, like he invented the question mark. Sometimes, he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy - the sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament." - Dr. Evil |
|
8th April 2009, 12:43 PM | #957 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
|
That's an excellent discussion. Do I have this right that Dr. G is suggesting that the red chips analyzed in the different spectra are not the same? So that some are possibly primer paint, and some are definitely not paint, due to either the presence or lack thereof, of zinc?
|
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts) |
|
8th April 2009, 12:43 PM | #958 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
Here's a link to the Jones/Robertson debate. If memory serves I believe Dr. Jones alleges a 10 second collapse time for one of the towers. I was very surprised at his lack of awareness of basic facts, as he is supposed to be a scientist.
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/aud...n_20061026.mp3 |
8th April 2009, 12:45 PM | #959 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
I see Dr. Greening is also reading the forum, and despite his dislike of most of us, he has taken some of our criticisms to heart, and emailed S. Jones with some questions around it.
Here is what I would like to know, and if anyone can get this to Dr. Greening, or if someone can answer it here, i would like to know.... In many of the "Red Chip" Spectra, there is no Zinc or Chromium spikes. Is there an explanation for this, if we assume that the chips are those of primer paint. In other words, could a reaction (physical or chemical) have taken place either during the explosion, or due to exposure to the elements or improper storage of the samples, that might have caused the removal of the Zinc and Chromium? Thanks TAM |
8th April 2009, 12:47 PM | #960 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
|
I agree this part of the discussion is interesting, which is why I asked my question about the Zinc absence in the other Spectra, and whether or not any physical or chemical reactions in the 8 years since the samples came about, may have caused the absence of the Zinc (and Chromium).
TAM |
Thread Tools | |
|
|