Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[Mancman]

Jones is still using the 1,3-DPP as evidence? What a fraud!

Quote:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract...es030356l.html

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Red

should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Why should it? What does it mean to you?

[Jwheelz]

Again Steven Jones excludes very important information to try and sway people over to his side.

Bottom of page 4 --

Quote:

EPA’s Erik Swartz stated that 1,3-DPP was present at
levels ‘‘that dwarfed all others.’’ Swartz went on to say—
‘‘We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever
done’’ (Garrett 2003).

Now lets look at his reference -- http://www.newsday.com/news/health/n...age-right-area

Quote:

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

Funny that a person in the *truth* movement would leave that last line out.

RebIbis, your research skills are just like that of any other truther. You already know how you want things to have happened so you immediately discard anything that doesn't fit your distorted agenda.

Face it Red, you don't have the slightest clue as to what happened on 9/11 because you have fallen victim to truth movement propaganda. I expect that your pride is now standing in the way of you ever being able to admit the truth or possibly even see it for that matter.

[jsfisher]

The Environmentalist does appear to be one of the many low (or no) threshold "scholarly" journals. The oddest thing is why would it accept an article so far from its stated purpose (i.e. the Earth and the environment).

At any rate, here is my summary of the article:

1. Valiant researchers obtain air-quality data from the EPA under the FOIA.
2. Pretty graphs are drawn by valiant researchers based on data.
3. Thermite!

I don't think I left anything out.

[Pardalis]

Originally Posted by Wolrab

It seems to me this is just an attempt at gaining credibility for their own future reference.

Not to mention they published it here

http://www.springer.com/environment/.../journal/10669

They are sucking up to the environmentalists now. The truthers are going green?

[~enigma~]

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Not to mention they published it here

http://www.springer.com/environment/.../journal/10669

They are sucking up to the environmentalists now. The truthers are going green?

1/20/2009 is coming up very quickly. The truthers have to "diversify" otherwise they will be a black mark on USA history come 1/21/2009. Looks to me like their attempts at "diversification" are failing.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here, this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

The full article can viewed in pdf form here.

Joneses Work is Ludicrous, RedIbis, Just how much oxygen does it take to cut a column at the World Trade center?

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

The paper cited contains no such claim that high levels (or any levels) of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ. Why should anyone be concerned about a nonexistent finding?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[R.Mackey]

Well, looks like I have to write some letters again...

This paper is a sham. References to works that are not reviewed, rampant speculation, and above all, no useful conclusion.

I do give Dr. Jones credit for one -- exactly one -- thing, however. He actually defines a hypothesis. Not a hypothesis for the whole WTC Towers collapse, mind you, just a hypothesis for the very limited scope of effects that he discusses here in detail. His hypothesis, i.e. that unknown "nano-composites" are to blame for the heat and chemical species seen at the Pile, has already been discounted due to superior (and preceeding) work by Lioy et al. among others.

Dr. Jones is moving closer to the scientific method with this paper, but unfortunately, by doing so he makes it much easier to refute his conclusions.

This paper, like the Bentham paper, should never have been published. I'm not surprised that it showed up here, rather than a more suitable publication. I'll be interested to see what their editors have to say about this, and will keep you informed.

[LashL]

Originally Posted by jsfisher

The Environmentalist does appear to be one of the many low (or no) threshold "scholarly" journals. The oddest thing is why would it accept an article so far from its stated purpose (i.e. the Earth and the environment).

The short answer: $3,000 publication fee (eta: courtesy of Mick Harrison, the twoofer lawyer who represented Kevin Ryan in his failed lawsuit).

Originally Posted by jsfisher

At any rate, here is my summary of the article:

1. Valiant researchers obtain air-quality data from the EPA under the FOIA.
2. Pretty graphs are drawn by valiant researchers based on data.
3. Thermite!

I don't think I left anything out.

No, that looks about right.

[deep]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

Published in "The Environmentalist" and archived here, this article questions the "high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires" found at the WTC site.

In addition to Boyle's Law, please name the other two laws that combine to form the combined gas law, then provide a brief description and at least five real-world examples for each. Next, describe the difference between the combined gas law and the ideal gas law, and describe why the ideal gas law is most accurate for monoatomic gases at high temperatures and low pressures.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

It's not hard to see where they're going with this. I expect the requisite wise cracks, but my general question would be why shouldn't we be concerned about these elevated levels and do they suggest the possibility of collapse by means other than impact, jet fuel, and gravity?

Please analyze all ~1700 messages in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=66047, and choose twenty messages that best support the text quoted above, including a one paragraph summary of each. Then, write a short biography on the author of each chosen message, using whatever information you can find using Google. Finally, tie it all together with a short essay on how the background of each author contributes to his or her opinion, drawing heavily on comparisons to illustrate your point.

Originally Posted by RedIbis

If the presence of these compounds and elevated levels did exist, could this explain why no construction has commenced at GZ? Other than some infrastructure, no commercial real estate exists in that block.

Name at least 100 literary characters with the initials GZ (use SH and TS if you run out), and explain in detail why you think the author chose those initials. Also include a short biography for each author, with at least one paragraph devoted to each member of the author's immediate family, plus any pets (past or present).

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The full article can viewed in pdf form here.

List twelve bird species that are native to Western Africa and outline their migratory habits.


DEBUNKED.

[DC]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Well, looks like I have to write some letters again...

This paper is a sham. References to works that are not reviewed, rampant speculation, and above all, no useful conclusion.

I do give Dr. Jones credit for one -- exactly one -- thing, however. He actually defines a hypothesis. Not a hypothesis for the whole WTC Towers collapse, mind you, just a hypothesis for the very limited scope of effects that he discusses here in detail. His hypothesis, i.e. that unknown "nano-composites" are to blame for the heat and chemical species seen at the Pile, has already been discounted due to superior (and preceeding) work by Lioy et al. among others.

Dr. Jones is moving closer to the scientific method with this paper, but unfortunately, by doing so he makes it much easier to refute his conclusions.

This paper, like the Bentham paper, should never have been published. I'm not surprised that it showed up here, rather than a more suitable publication. I'll be interested to see what their editors have to say about this, and will keep you informed.

LOL the MIC "scientist" doesnt like the articel

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by deep44

List twelve bird species that are native to Western Africa and outline their migratory habits.


DEBUNKED.

Just 12?

[SDC]

OK, this is from the perspective of a librarian who manages subscriptions to this kind of online material all day every day. (That would be me.) Springer is the real thing, as a publisher, one of the most serious names in scientific publishing. All I know about this journal particularly is what they say at the site:

Aims and scope
"Diminishing energy and non-renewable resources, toxic wastes, loss of agricultural land and potable water supplies are key concerns shared by industry, governmental leaders and environmental professionals. The conflict of interests and goals that was once a gap is now bridged by The Environmentalist. This journal acts as a catalyst for environmental education, identifying available educational opportunities, and providing necessary guidelines and the missing framework for defining the more viable management mechanisms useful to industry, governmental policy-makers and environmental professionals.

"The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns. The Environmentalist contains elements applicable to the education and training of mankind at one level or the other, be it formal or non-formal schooling, specialist training, retraining of decision makers or communication to the public at large."

Well, it's definitely "soft" as a science journal. Certainly an odd place to put an article purporting to provide a basic argument about "therm*te" or its ilk. Here is the editorial board, with lots of Guelphers (Guelphians? Guelphomatics?):


The Environmentalist

Co-Editor-in-Chief: J.T. Trevors; P.G. Kevan
ISSN: 0251-1088 (print version)
ISSN: 1573-2991 (electronic version)
Journal no. 10669
Springer US
Online version available
Online First articles available


Description
|
Editorial Board

Editorial Board

Co-Editors-in-Chief:
Peter G. Kevan
Depts. of Environmental Biology & Botany, University of Guelph, ON, Canada
Jack T. Trevors
Dept. of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, ON, Canada

Associate Editorial and Advisory Board:

Ernesto I. Badano, Puebla, Mexico; F.J. Egea González, Almeria, Spain; Marc Habash, Guelph, ON, Canada; M. Kassas, Giza, Egypt; Jonathan Knight, Berkshire, UK; M. Lisowski, Charleston, IL, USA; J.W.S. Longhurst, Bristol, UK; H.F. Ludwig, Bangkok, Thailand; J.F. Potter, Guildford, UK; G. Rees, Farnborough, UK; P. Sibley, Guelph, ON, Canada; U.E. Simonis, Berlin, Germany; M. Pugh Thomas, Liverpool, UK; V.G. Thomas, Guelph, ON, Canada; D. Waite, Regina, SK, Canada

[funk de fino]

Originally Posted by Dictator Cheney

LOL the MIC "scientist" doesnt like the articel

LOL "articel"

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Dr. Jones is moving closer to the scientific method with this paper, but unfortunately, by doing so he makes it much easier to refute his conclusions.

The floor is yours.

[TheRedWorm]

Originally Posted by Red

Red
should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Why should it? What does it mean to you?

Red?

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Red?

If you read the article, you might find the reported levels of Benzene, for example, somewhat of a concern. Maybe not.

[johnny karate]

Holy CRAP! There was Benzene found at Ground Zero!?! Why didn't someone point this out earlier?

[Arus808]

yeah. imagine that. Benzene.. You know, a principal component of combustion products produced by the burning of PVC (polyvinyl chloride).

PVC.. you know, common in HIGH RISE buildings, considering all those computer casings, filing cabinets, shelving, office supplies, xerox machines, piping, etc by the THOUSANDS in a 110 story OFFICE BUILDING.


Lets not forget the other uses, that Benzene is used in:
Nylon (some carpet contains nylon)
Certain rubbers
Drugs
dyes
lubricants
pesticides (wonder how many times, the WTC has been the subject of routine extermination of pests in the 30+ years since their construction).



A concern?

Guess Red has never worked in an office.

[WildCat]

Watch how Red dodges the question, and then changes the subject!

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Originally Posted by TheRedWorm

Why should it? What does it mean to you?

Originally Posted by RedIbis

If you read the article, you might find the reported levels of Benzene, for example, somewhat of a concern.

eta: Or does Red think that benzene is an "energetic compound", which Jones uses as a euphemism for thermite/ate?

[SDC]

Springer is a serious company, but how is it shown that this article was peer-reviewed? Red I., are you simply assuming that, or did you find references to the reviews? Apologies (in advance) if I am being dense, here.

[Arus808]

yes, let's watch him ignore that BENZENE is a very common substance, so common, that the computer he is using to post his tripe CONTAINS IT.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by SDC

Springer is a serious company, but how is it shown that this article was peer-reviewed? Red I., are you simply assuming that, or did you find references to the reviews? Apologies (in advance) if I am being dense, here.

I can assure you that you are not being dense. I've seen no evidence of peer review, LashL says you just pay $3,000 to get it published.

LashL, do you have a source for that, even if it's off line?

[Evilgiraffe]

It appears the article has been published under Springer's Open Choice scheme. Details of how this works can be found here.

I can't find any details about the peer review process but the fact that a generally respectable publisher like Springer is involved means there is less of a whiff of vanity publication than Jones' previous gaffe with the Bentham Open Civil Engineering Journal.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

There's a lot of distraction from the point at hand here, and that is, should there be a concern that high levels of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ?

Originally Posted by Myriad

The paper cited contains no such claim that high levels (or any levels) of "energetic compounds" were found at GZ. Why should anyone be concerned about a nonexistent finding?

The lack of a response by RedIbis suggests that he may now have realized that the paper does not actually claim to have found any "energetic compounds" whatsoever. He was deceived, by a paper that was carefully designed to deceive him.

What the paper says is that certain components of the smoke "can be explained by" the presence of "energetic nanocomposites" (which is no-I'm-not-crazy-why-do-you-ask-speak for "nanothermite.")

This is akin to stating that the presence of slightly elevated levels of CO2 in your bedroom can be explained by a ninja hiding in your closet. It's deceptive not because it's outright false, but because it's an open manhole for an affirming the consequent fallacy. A exists and can be explained by B (that is to say, B causes A), therefore B. A ninja in your closet can explain higher CO2 levels, so there's a ninja in your closet. Nanothermite can explain chemicals at GZ, so there's nanothermite "found" at GZ.

But whom will this trap catch? Certainly not the environmental scientists who read the journal regularly and will immediately realize that "can be explained by" is a very weak argument indeed, especially when that statement itself is not corroborated in the paper (that is, Jones did not demonstrate that energetic nanocomposites could cause the observed gasses; he only argues that they could hypothetically contain some of the same elements). They will simply put it aside as an unsupported hypothesis pending further stronger evidence.

Instead, the trap was designed to deceive RedIbis and truthers like him. To get him to rush over and breathlessly declare that "high levels of energetic compounds were found at GZ." To entice an endless chain of future truthers to credulously repeat, "High levels of mysterious energetic nanocomposites were found at GZ, and there's a peer reviewed paper that says so!" Sure, the journal's readership is not deceived, we're not deceived, and even RedIbis can now see how he was fooled for a while into claiming something silly that even Jones never actually said, but Jones doesn't care about that. His goal is to keep the rumors and hearsay flying, to drive business.

RedIbis, you are a victim of Jones' deception. He's played a practical joke on you, of sorts, at your expense and to his benefit. I'm sorry to have to point this out, but knowing it, I hope you will have a better chance to avoid being victimized this way in the future.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Arus808

yes, let's watch him ignore that BENZENE is a very common substance, so common, that the computer he is using to post his tripe CONTAINS IT.

BENZENE is produced in hydrocarbon fires, the benzene ring is also the basic building block for TNT.
Cutting torches also produce benzene when first ignited.

[twinstead]

Benzene, you say? Hell, after a night of drinking and a heavy Mexican meal...

Oh, never mind.

[Heiwa]

First class article by Jones/Ryan. Look how the sect members shake in their weak foundations at JREF Forum.

[Civilized Worm]

Originally Posted by Heiwa

First class article by Jones/Ryan. Look how the sect members shake in their weak foundations at JREF Forum.

Well perhaps you'd like to run through it's implications for us?

[T.A.M.]

Is "MAD" magazine a peer reviewed journal? I ask because they could probably get their crap printed in it, and it is about as relevant to 9/11, engineering, and physics, as "the environmentalist"?

TAM

Edit: Ahhh, I see, another attempt to sneak an article into a journal simply to make the statement "We have published a 9/11 related article in a peer reviewed journal".

They are getting desperate. Must be running out of legitimate physics and engineering journals to be turned down by.

TAM

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

Is "MAD" magazine a peer reviewed journal? I ask because they could probably get their crap printed in it, and it is about as relevant to 9/11, engineering, and physics, as "the environmentalist"?

TAM

MAD only does parody, they don't do parody of a parody.

[T.A.M.]

Here you go...

It is the 1st article in their "Online First" volume (the debut edition maybe).
It is listed as "Open access"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...tatus=Accepted

TAM

[Blender Head]

Originally Posted by Mince

Debunk Alert Siren:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7a543527f1.jpg

Does it go "woo woo woo woo"?

[A W Smith]

vanity press

Quote:

Since costs are involved in every step of the publication process, from peer-review to printing and hosting the final paper on dedicated servers, we ask that the author, or their institution or funding agency, pay a fee of $3,000 USD

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

In terms of scholarship, this paper is no better than the rest of the nonsense produced by the Truth Movement. However, it is better organized, and at least legible, and as such is a much more useful case study for someone genuinely curious about the Scientific Method.

So let's begin. The first obvious problem (not counting the title or the abstract) is the following excerpt from Page 1:

Originally Posted by K. Ryan et al.

The characteristics of these un-extinguishable fires have not been adequately explained as the results of a normal structure fire, even one accelerated by jet fuel. Conversely, such fires are better explained given the presence of chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants.

Is this true? Has the fire "not been adequately explained?" This assertion is offered without any support at all. In contrast, there are numerous examples of large but slow, contained fires, i.e. Centralia, both natural and accidental, that resist any effort to fight them and even hundreds of years worth of rain.

The claim of "even one accelerated by jet fuel" is a total red herring. An accelerant is actually a problem in this example, because it leads to more rapid fuel exhaustion. The conditions needed, instead, are abundant fuel, limited airflow, and relative thermal isolation. All of this is obviously present in the basements of the World Trade Center Towers, roughly 20 meters high by 64 meters on a side, and densely packed with tens of thousands of tons of combustible materials, with little access to air.

The "chemical energetic materials" (sic) are not well defined. Is crushed furniture such a material? I would venture so, since wood and paper average 25 MJ / kg of chemical energy release in ordinary fires. So, technically, there's enough deliberate vagueness here to make a semantic argument. If Mr. Ryan means "there was a lot of combustible material," then we really can't argue. We know there was. It was there in the Towers before collapse. No paper is needed, in this case.

But what about thermite, which we all know Mr. Ryan wants to say, but does not? Well, there's two problems with thermite. First of all, thermite is actually less energetic by a large factor -- typically about 4 MJ / kg, perhaps there is some formulation I don't know about that approaches 10 MJ / kg, but certainly nothing close to ordinary combustibles like wood and plastics. Over the long term, thermite is actually less of a fire hazard. We cannot possibly claim thermite was present from the total heat release alone. The only way to infer the existence of thermite is to study the rate of heat release, and this isn't dependent on the fuel at all (since it is abundant), but rather the supply of oxidizer. Mr. Ryan and company do not even attempt, here or anywhere in the paper, to quantify the amount of oxygen available to the ordinary Pile fires that we know must have been there.

The other problem with thermite is that it tends to burn all at once. Since it needs no supply of oxygen, the rate of burning in a large quantity of the substance is limited only by heat transfer, which involves grain size and mixture with inert contents if any, but is pretty fast. In general, a burn rate of less than 1 cm/s is unlikely -- either the thermite will go out, or it will burn much faster, regardless of its volume. The thermite reaction is characterized by its tendency to burn completely. So, if it was thermite, why would it still be burning months afterward? And in such enormous quantities?

To summarize, even this seemingly innocent excerpt demonstrates critical errors in Mr. Ryan's thinking:

• Asserted without justification, that the fire behavior was unexpected
• Asserted without justification, that other scientists do not or cannot provide an explanation
• Asserted without evidence, that "chemical energetic materials," meaning in this context thermites, are a better fit to the long duration and resilience of the fire, when in fact the opposite is indicated

Moving on to the next problem:

Originally Posted by K. Ryan et al.

Explosions followed by white dust clouds, and molten metal at GZ, are of particular interest in this analysis. A white dust cloud is one of the products of the thermite reaction. The white dust in this case is aluminum oxide released from the extremely exothermic reaction between aluminum and iron oxide. The other product of the thermite reaction is molten iron. These facts, coupled with evidence for extremely high temperatures at the WTC, suggest that investigators should examine the potential for such pyrotechnic materials at the WTC.

Here, again, we have numerous totally unsupported assertions.

The "explosions followed by white dust clouds" are, of course, gypsum, concrete, and similar materials ejected by the collapse, and not by a "thermite reaction." It is true that aluminum oxide is white, but it is not true that all white dust clouds are aluminum oxide. This is a transparent assuming the consequent logical fallacy.

There have been, of course, other analyses of the dust clouds (i.e. Lioy et al.) and these have found absolutely no unusual aluminum signature. Indeed, it is not aluminum at all, but rather titanium, lead, iron, calcium, silicon that are in high quantities, and each of these is easily traced to specific, mundane materials -- white paint in the case of the titanium, glass for the silicon.

However, even if this was not the case, Mr. Ryan would be remiss in not presenting evidence for his theory that aluminum oxide was dominant. He has not. He also, unsurprisingly, presents no evidence of the "molten metal" that supposedly accompanied these explosions. Instead, what few possible indications of molten metal he has either come from well before the collapses, as in the WTC 2 "firefall," or long after the collapses -- there is no indication of molten metal during these "explosions," or for that matter in the other literature examining the dust. Presumably the supposed thermite reaction would not create its two ingredients at totally different times!

And this leads to another problem. The focus of the paper is supposedly on persistent thermite reactions in the Pile. Why are we here treating it like an explosive? Wouldn't explosive behavior preclude much later and slower reactions? Or are these two totally different types of imaginary destructive device, in which case one is not evidence for the other at all, and thus totally superfluous to the paper? The correct answer is, none of the above; instead, Mr. Ryan is simply confused.

Regarding the "extremely high temperatures," again, Mr. Ryan asserts without proof that it can only be explained via his supposed mystery reaction. This is simply not true. The temperatures are consistent with those in underground coal fires, and was explained in this instance by the DELTA Group, through a simple estimate of the energies and rates of reaction, assuming, again, only normal combustible materials. Thermite, as before, actually hurts. It burns faster, but its energy content is so much less that it actually reduces the total energy -- and it is total energy, not burning rate, that would lead to heightened temperatures weeks after the collapses.

And that's just the Introduction.

Shall I bother continuing? Actually, I think I'd like the opposition to take a crack at the next section. Find the core arguments, isolate those to a few sentences, and see if they are properly supported. I'll be glad to help you walk through it. This could be a highly productive discussion for those of you unfamiliar with science.


ETA: I am, of course, bringing these and the other glaring issues to the attention of the editors. I will not reprint any e-mails I receive, as per JREF Forum policy, but I will keep you apprised of the situation.

Interestingly, of the two editors in chief, one has been on sabbatical since September of last year (prior to the paper's submittal), and the other has apparently published creationist science papers with affiliates of The Origin of Life Foundation. I have not yet evaluated the latter claim for accuracy, nor does it excuse or explain the poor quality of Mr. Ryan's paper, but it is an interesting coincidence.

[ref]

Speaking of Mr. Ryan, he produced this paper last month.

The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites

In here he suggests the following:

Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing (Ryan 2008). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing.

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure? Gee. It must have been spray-on nano-thermite!

In the paper he tries to come up with 10 reasons why NIST should test for nano-thermites.

Originally Posted by Kevin Ryan

In any case, it is important for those seeking the truth about 9/11 to consider what organizations and people had access to the technologies that were used to accomplish the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings. It is also important to recognize the links between those who had access to the technologies, those who had access to the buildings, and those who produced the clearly false official reports.

To that end we should note that NIST had considerable connections to nano-thermites, both before and during the WTC investigation. It is therefore inexplicable why NIST did not consider such materials as an explanation for the fires that burned on 9/11, and long afterward at Ground Zero. This fact would not be inexplicable, of course, if those managing the NIST investigation knew to not look, or test, for such materials.

Sigh.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by ref

The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure? Gee. It must have been spray-on nano-thermite!

Well, yeah. I mean, obviously the collapse should have started far away from where the impact damage and fires were, so clearly Inside Jerb!

Charlatanery like this is one of the major reasons people don't always trust science. There's too many scammers practicing pseudoscience for their own personal gain. This is why it's important to confront journals -- even virtually unknown, irrelevant, plausibly unreviewed ones like we have here -- when they fall victim to this nonsense.

[RedIbis]

Originally Posted by Arus808

yes, let's watch him ignore that BENZENE is a very common substance, so common, that the computer he is using to post his tripe CONTAINS IT.

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by RedIbis

What is a normal level of Benzene present in an office bldg fire?

What was the average daily value of Benzene at GZ?

What was the highest level of Benzene reported at GZ, in November of 01?

What can account for the spikes reported, months after the attacks?

Maybe these are things that one should report when saying that Benzene means thermite (or energetic whatevers). You know, that whole providing proof that what you're saying is significant and not just blowing smoke.