Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:08 PM

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand

by Jim Hoffman

Version 0.7, April 18, 2009

Introduction

The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior.

The basis and validity of this identification can grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.

But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings?

Fortunately, the answer is no. The central observations of the paper can be understood by any intelligent person with some effort. In this thumbnail summary of the paper's findings, I focus on three easy-to-remember features of the red-gray chips established by the paper -- features that undeniably show that the chips are a high-tech engineered pyrotechnic material. Because my description includes some technical language, I have provided a glossary for the benefit of the non-technical reader.

Contents

Introduction

Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips

1. Physical Structure
2. Chemical Composition
3. Thermal Behavior

Conclusion

Glossary

Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips

PLEASE READ THE REST:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html

UPDATE

This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper.

It is NOT about:

* theories about chain-of-custody

* theories about the Bentham Scientific journal

* theories about Dr. Steven Jones or the other scientists

Moderators; please delete any posts that are not germane to this thread. Thank you.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 04:11 PM

Shouldn't this be merged into one of the numerous threads about this subject? Isn't this actually more of an issue that should have been posted in those pre-existing threads?

jhunter1163 · 20th April 2009, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

They simply didn't exist.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

They simply didn't exist.

The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Shouldn't this be merged into one of the numerous threads about this subject? Isn't this actually more of an issue that should have been posted in those pre-existing threads?

No, this thread is focused on the elementry science of the thermite finds.

It will not be bogged down by conspiracy theories. It will focus only on what the scientists found, and the science behind it.

leftysergeant · 20th April 2009, 04:44 PM

But this one centers on Hoffman's blather.

Dim bulb seems not to think it significant that the reagents are not uniformly distributed through the chips.

Dude, that works for paint. The elements found are supposed to be in paint.

Inhomogenous mixtures of incendiaries and explosives are generally useless.

It's PAINT, you moron.
Stick to teaching math, Hoffman.

AJM8125 · 20th April 2009, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

It will not be bogged down by conspiracy theories.

Too late.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

But this one centers on Hoffman's blather.

Dim bulb seems not to think it significant that the reagents are not uniformly distributed through the chips.

Dude, that works for paint. The elements found are supposed to be in paint.

Inhomogenous mixtures of incendiaries and explosives are generally useless.

It's PAINT, you moron.
Stick to teaching math, Hoffman.

please read the update.

fullflavormenthol · 20th April 2009, 04:55 PM

Okay, well it doesn't really provide anything new. There is still the issue of not being able to show that these chips are anything other than paint. Honestly this has been covered in the other threads.

It is paint.

tsig · 20th April 2009, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.

No the scientists did not find the samples they were found by various individuals.

Why did they have to go all the way to the Brooklyn bridge for a sample? I would think ground zero where the debris was would be the best place to find a sample of the debris.

I quit buying bridges from strangers some time ago.

Holler Hoojer · 20th April 2009, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

No the scientists did not find the samples they were found by various individuals.

Why did they have to go all the way to the Brooklyn bridge for a sample? I would think ground zero where the debris was would be the best place to find a sample of the debris.

I quit buying bridges from strangers some time ago.

Maybe the light was better there?

Arus808 · 20th April 2009, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.

repeating this lie doesn't make it true

It has never been true since 9/11/2001

get a new act gallileo this one is getting quite old

leftysergeant · 20th April 2009, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

please read the update.

He still shows inconsistant make-up from one chip or part of a chip to the next.

Okay for paint, but it kills therm*te.

WildCat · 20th April 2009, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.

Are you using "thermitic pyrotechnics" as a synonym for "paint chips"?

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol

Okay, well it doesn't really provide anything new. There is still the issue of not being able to show that these chips are anything other than paint. Honestly this has been covered in the other threads.

It is paint.

This thread is about science.

It is NOT about faith-based appeals to your "authority".

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Are you using "thermitic pyrotechnics" as a synonym for "paint chips"?

No, I am not.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Arus808

repeating this lie doesn't make it true

It has never been true since 9/11/2001

get a new act gallileo this one is getting quite old

you argue from faith-based authority, not from science.

I would like to give a friendly warning to the JREFers:

There are a lot of lurkers out there who come here to see if the thermite paper can be debunked based on science.

If they come here and read these faith-based authority appeals, they will not be convinced.

Dog Town · 20th April 2009, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

...
It will not be bogged down by conspiracy theories.

So why did you post this in a conspiracy sub-forum, exactly? 911 at that...

Quote:

It will focus only on what the scientists found, and the science behind it

If it's all sciency, and stuff, post in the SCIENCE forum!

Dog Town · 20th April 2009, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

There are a lot of lurkers out there who come here to see if the thermite paper can be debunked based on science.

If they come here and read these faith-based authority appeals, they will not be convinced.

The funny thing is, you are the one running on blind faith, not us.
You are right though, lurkers see you get demolished time, and time again!
It doesn't help your side a bit!

boloboffin · 20th April 2009, 05:44 PM

This is the Jim Hoffman that wrote this?

Quote:

The replacement of ceiling tiles throughout the building may have been done on any of a number of schedules. On the one hand the tiles could have been supplied as part of an maintenance contract and installed using the existing building maintenance staff doing what they thought of as normal building maintenance work. Since the new landlord had just taken over in late July of 2001, it wouldn't seem at all unusual to see some refurbishing, especially as unobtrusive as swapping out old ceiling tiles.

Alternatively, the tiles could have been installed during overnight hours by a team of maintenance workers unnoticed by tenants. The logistics of such an operation can be imagined, and some estimates of human resources made.

We know that the Towers had only two types of ceiling tiles: 20-inch squares for the tenant spaces and 12-inch squares for the core spaces. An estimate of the number of tiles per tower is 1,200,000 large tiles and 800,000 small tiles.

The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles.

With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of two tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of fourty workers 187 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in three weeks and weekends of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage.

That Jim Hoffman?

A W Smith · 20th April 2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.

Ummm... No they didn't, A few citizens found the dust and held onto it for five years. And Hoffman fails in the first sentence with a bald assertion logical fallacy. Even if it were not simple paint and hypothetically was an incendiary. It fails at chain of custody.

Dismissed

Thunder · 20th April 2009, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

I would like to give a friendly warning to the JREFers:

There are a lot of lurkers out there who come here to see if the thermite paper can be debunked based on science. .

why don't you just let people think for themselves huh?

Thunder · 20th April 2009, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.

this is an utter lie. please don't lie.

what scientific degrees did the folks who found the specimens have?

twinstead · 20th April 2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

The funny thing is, you are the one running on blind faith, not us.
You are right though, lurkers see you get demolished time, and time again!
It doesn't help your side a bit!

Yes. Galileo will NEVER get this. It is HE who is running on blind faith. The people here KNOW the science.

Thunder · 20th April 2009, 06:02 PM

Galileo- how are you going to deal with it...when this "monumental evidence" fails to get anything done??

how will u deal with another great truther failure? cause its coming soon.

Truthers think this is gonna be their finest hour. But in fact, it will be the final nail in their coffin.

A W Smith · 20th April 2009, 06:03 PM

Holy Ganole! Hoffmans a moron!

Quote:

The replacement of ceiling tiles throughout the building may have been done on any of a number of schedules. On the one hand the tiles could have been supplied as part of an maintenance contract and installed using the existing building maintenance staff doing what they thought of as normal building maintenance work. Since the new landlord had just taken over in late July of 2001, it wouldn't seem at all unusual to see some refurbishing, especially as unobtrusive as swapping out old ceiling tiles.

Alternatively, the tiles could have been installed during overnight hours by a team of maintenance workers unnoticed by tenants. The logistics of such an operation can be imagined, and some estimates of human resources made.

We know that the Towers had only two types of ceiling tiles: 20-inch squares for the tenant spaces and 12-inch squares for the core spaces.

20 inch? What the hell module is that? its 24X24 or 24X48,

Quote:

An estimate of the number of tiles per tower is 1,200,000 large tiles and 800,000 small tiles.

Do over! get your module corrected!

Quote:

The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles.

With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of two tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of fourty workers 187 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in three weeks and weekends of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage.

If you can find any crew that can change 120 ceiling tiles per man hour. You can do my ceilings for me.

http://craftsman-book.com/products/i...9&detail=intro

Quote:

Placing the ceiling tile in the grid is a simple drop-in process except for borders, corners, lighting, columns and other nuisances. For a simple drop-in ceiling using an average price nonrated tile, the two person crew should be able to install around 250 square feet, or 32 tiles per hour. Tile prices vary depending on cut, style, texture and fire rating.

Hoffman! Your a MORON!

Arus808 · 20th April 2009, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

you argue from faith-based authority, not from science.

not even true. I based my facts on the two NIST reports, and the independent reports from other SCHOLARS on the subject

YOU are basing your opinion on the FAITH BASED fact free crap of Jones and Hoffman

Pardalis · 20th April 2009, 06:15 PM

Strange that Galileo's clone keeps quoting other people's work. One would think he could do his own.

Sunstealer · 20th April 2009, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure

Ha, ha. No - anyone with a pair of eyes and a brain can see that the two layers do not share the same structure. However, I can confirm that yes, indeed these two layers are 3 dimensional! Wow! If you don't believe that these two structures are 3 dimensional just look at this!

Advisory Warning - No you do not require 3D glasses to observe the following image.

Yes, the gray side which doesn't contribute to the reaction as Harrit et al confirm, which has a completely different morphology and chemical composition to the other layer, because it's oxidised steel and the red layer is paint. Who'da thunk it eh? Someone painted some steel and a little insy- winsy bit spalled off and was found in some dust. Halle <rule 10> lujah!

Quote:

The basis and validity of this identification can [be] grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion (sic), [uneeded comma] and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples.

So guess what folks, if you only have a working knowledge of Chemistry and Physics, which lets face it means sweet felicity arkwright, not only are you advised not to look at the data, but to go straight to the conclusions!

Yo buddy! Got physics? Yeah! Ok, just forget about everything else and read the conclusions!

Quote:

The chips, whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material.

Which they aren't. Samples a,b,c,d are different to the chip subjected to MEK (MEK chip) and again are different to the chip in Fig 31. See the moderated thread where I prove this is not the case.

Quote:

The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano-particles, each highly consistent in size and shape.

No there is no nano-engineering involved, because none of the particles observed are 100nm or below - the estimates from the SEM photos are approximately 0.2µm or 200nm.

Quote:

A thin red layer is supported by a gray layer of homogenous material. Zooming in on the red layer shows it to be composed of two different types of particles embedded in a porous matrix: thin plates typically hexagonal in shape, and faceted grains.

Well <rule 10> me! They actually describe something correctly!

Quote:

* The particles are very small: the plates being only about 40 nanometers thick, and the grains are only about 100 nanometers in diameter.
* The particles are highly uniform in size and shape.

This isn't too far off either.

Quote:

* The particles are intimately mixed in a highly consistent composition throughout the material.

Balls. Just looking at the pictures shows random mixing. There is nothing consistent on a micro scale and no-one would expect them to be.

Quote:

These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Nope, no nano-noona engineering here just good old fashioned rust spalling from a steel surface and taking the paint with it. Wow, who would have thought that paint might contain small particles of things that make up paint.

Quote:

The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form.

Utter bollocks. They cannot tell this from the XEDS data and this is a pure lie. Where is the silicon? Why no mention of the silicon? Look it's right here in the paper!

Wow! Who would have thought that these people would lie about what the paper says. Have they no idea that the analysis method used cannot determine what they are saying, let alone the fact that the platelets containing Aluminium also have significant amounts of Si and O showing that they are likely to be aluminosilicates and not pure aluminium (with an oxide layer)?

Note: "MEK chip" has a red layer that is a different material to those other chips so the MEK test cannot confirm commercial pure Al @ 99% pure in the sample. (See moderated thread for further details).

Quote:

The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al .

No they don't! Even the paper shows that this is not the case. Stoichiometry anyone? FFS!

Quote:

The flat plates are mostly aluminum. Because the other elements are present in much smaller quantities, most of the aluminum must be in its (unstable) elemental form, unbound to oxygen and ready to react.

Rubbish! Look at the graph!

Show me where Al dominates! We see Si, O and C all of which have peaks equal or above the Al. (And yes I'm aware that peak ratios aren't everything but in this case it's taking the <rule 10>. This is either complete and utter unfamiliarity with SEM and EDS or a bare faced lie. FFS we can see with our own eyes that this is incorrect. Do people now understand why this severely <rule 10>'s me off? It's the bold faced lies that masquerade as some sort of scientific truth in the hope it traps the unaware. This isn't truth it's bollocks.

They aren't even trying to quote from the MEK sample, which has a red layer that is of a different composition to that of samples a,b,c,d. They are telling a lie that even someone without knowledge of chemistry or physics can tell simply by looking at the data they refer to - namely Fig 11a (as above).

Quote:

The faceted grains are mostly iron and oxygen in the ratio of the Fe2O3 form of iron oxide, a compound that readily gives up its oxygen to aluminum once the reaction is started.

True - the "faceted grains" are indeed rhomboidal or rhombohedral in nature and comprise of mostly Fe and O therefore one can safely say that they are Fe₂O₃, which is well known for this crystal structure.

Quote:

Thus, the two types of nano-particles in the red layer contain the two ingredients of thermite: pure aluminum and iron oxide. Furthermore, the red-layer matrix in which the particles are embedded in a highly uniform manner is mostly silicon and oxygen -- similar in composition to known variants of nano-thermite optimized for high explosive pressure.

No they don't contain pure aluminium. The paper expressly shows that in Figs 5,7,8,9,10, 11 and 15. The platelets observed contain Si, O and C in significant quantities that cannot be over looked - there is no pure Al in these platelets.

Quote:

Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers.

Correct. One thing is missing. The samples do not show a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite - unless you mean paint attached to rust.

I just couldn't read anymore - I've got to go to work in the morning and actually deal with the real world and real engineering problems.

"working knowledge of Chemistry and Physics" - and mathematics (and I define working as passed to a level an 18 year old is expected) is enough to be able to start your journey on a metallurgy/materials engineering degree course, however, it doesn't allow you to be knowledgeable before you take the course.

You may have an understanding of flight and you may have flown a light aeroplane for a good few hours, but that does not make you qualified to comment on what the co-pilot is doing when he presses switches in a 747. Even worse is someone telling the co-pilot that he's doing it all wrong when that person has zero experience.

I've no idea who Jim Hoffman is, but he hasn't had any experience in materials analysis or metallurgy/materials engineering. He gets the majority of things wrong - and this is supposed to be for anyone to understand? Well I guess if you tell people that 2+2 = 76.4 then those who don't know any better will think it's true.

It's this level of BS that really annoys me as I suspect most sane readers can tell. The truth movement is made up of gullible unknowledgable fools who fall for this type of "crap analysis". Thank christ they are spending their time with this nonsense rather than being let loose in the real world designing things that millions of people rely upon daily.

Edit: And why the <rule 10> do they not bother to read what an article says and then compare it to the paper. I don't expect a truther has actually read the paper twice in it's entirety let alone understand what it is saying. Goodnight.

Thunder · 20th April 2009, 06:19 PM

so the truthers found red paint and rust??

wowowowowwowowo!!!!

nice job guys!!

defaultdotxbe · 20th April 2009, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper.

It is NOT about:

* theories about chain-of-custody

hoffmans paper is based on the assumption that the samples are uncontaminated WTC dust, therefore chain of custody is a primary point of discussion for this

Thunder · 20th April 2009, 06:27 PM

Check out these pics of recovered WTC steel. Notice the color of the steel. Thermite? I dont think so.

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912418.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912396.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912252.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912506.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912511.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928806.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912199.jpg

http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912513.jpg

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

So why did you post this in a conspiracy sub-forum, exactly? 911 at that...

If it's all sciency, and stuff, post in the SCIENCE forum!

This in the only sub-forum that gets much traffic here, the JREFers are into conspiracies, you know.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by boloboffin

This is the Jim Hoffman that wrote this?

That Jim Hoffman?

The thermite has been found, the real question is to figure out how it got in there.

You forgot that Hoffman says this is hypothetical, the title was:

"A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario"

If you can prove Hoffman's theory wrong, then please PM me. Hoffman is not making a claim that his theory is proven por even probable, only that it is possible and plausible.

Otherwise, please stay on topic.

Galileo · 20th April 2009, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Holy Ganole! Hoffmans a moron!

20 inch? What the hell module is that? its 24X24 or 24X48, Do over! get your module corrected!

If you can find any crew that can change 120 ceiling tiles per man hour. You can do my ceilings for me.

http://craftsman-book.com/products/i...9&detail=intro

Hoffman! Your a MORON!

this is a different paper, not the topic of this thread.

Mods - please remove.

Arus808 · 20th April 2009, 06:46 PM

actually its provided to prove that Hoffman, the author of your paper, has some issues with REALITY and anythng he writes, needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

the article as posted by AW SMITH is illustrating other works by Hoffman that are equally questionable, and shows that he has no idea of what he is talking about.

when arey ou going to address the point that the dust samples were CONTAMINATED

this is the fourth thread on this subject and YOU"VE avoided answering this question in all four threads.

defaultdotxbe · 20th April 2009, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The thermite has been found, the real question is to figure out how it got in there.

there are 2 problems with this statement

1: it has not been proven to be thermite, by conducting the experiment in a oxygen-rich environment harrit et al cannot rule out normal combustion for the energy release (in fact given that they found enthalpies much higher than thermite, and indeed any known chemical reaction means there must have been unmetered oxygen being reacted)

2: it has never been determined if the dust is an uncontaminated sample from the WTC

Thunder · 20th April 2009, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

The thermite has been found, the real question is to figure out how it got in there. .

saying that again and again..doesn't make it so.

Dog Town · 20th April 2009, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Galileo

This in the only sub-forum that gets much traffic here, the JREFers are into conspiracies, you know.

WoW...wrong again! You should look around a little. "JREF" is much more than conspiracy bat-crap.

So I'll ask again:
If you don't want conspiracy to be talked about, why post it here?
You see...you make no sense!

tj15 · 20th April 2009, 06:51 PM

Galileo, HOW was the nano thermite used in the WTC?

Also, prove that it makes a loud noise (like an explosion) when ignited.

20th April 2009, 04:08 PM	#1
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand by Jim Hoffman Version 0.7, April 18, 2009 Introduction The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers. Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure, chemical composition, and ignition behavior. The basis and validity of this identification can grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion, and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples. But what of the reader whose strong suit isn't the hard sciences? Does one have to be an expert to understand the findings and evaluate the many claims thrown up by "debunkers" to dismiss those findings? Fortunately, the answer is no. The central observations of the paper can be understood by any intelligent person with some effort. In this thumbnail summary of the paper's findings, I focus on three easy-to-remember features of the red-gray chips established by the paper -- features that undeniably show that the chips are a high-tech engineered pyrotechnic material. Because my description includes some technical language, I have provided a glossary for the benefit of the non-technical reader. Contents Introduction Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips 1. Physical Structure 2. Chemical Composition 3. Thermal Behavior Conclusion Glossary Three Features of the Red-Gray Chips PLEASE READ THE REST: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t...de_simple.html UPDATE This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper. It is NOT about: * theories about chain-of-custody * theories about the Bentham Scientific journal * theories about Dr. Steven Jones or the other scientists Moderators; please delete any posts that are not germane to this thread. Thank you.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Last edited by Galileo; 20th April 2009 at 04:46 PM.

20th April 2009, 04:11 PM	#2
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,415	Shouldn't this be merged into one of the numerous threads about this subject? Isn't this actually more of an issue that should have been posted in those pre-existing threads?
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 04:13 PM	#3
jhunter1163 beer-swilling semiliterate Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes. Posts: 25,073	Originally Posted by Galileo Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple They simply didn't exist.
	__________________ A møøse ønce bit my sister

20th April 2009, 04:29 PM	#4
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by jhunter1163 They simply didn't exist. The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 04:31 PM	#5
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Shouldn't this be merged into one of the numerous threads about this subject? Isn't this actually more of an issue that should have been posted in those pre-existing threads? No, this thread is focused on the elementry science of the thermite finds. It will not be bogged down by conspiracy theories. It will focus only on what the scientists found, and the science behind it.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 04:44 PM	#6
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	But this one centers on Hoffman's blather. Dim bulb seems not to think it significant that the reagents are not uniformly distributed through the chips. Dude, that works for paint. The elements found are supposed to be in paint. Inhomogenous mixtures of incendiaries and explosives are generally useless. It's PAINT, you moron. Stick to teaching math, Hoffman.

20th April 2009, 04:44 PM	#7
AJM8125 Potsing Whiled Runk Tagger Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 20,386	Originally Posted by Galileo It will not be bogged down by conspiracy theories. Too late.
	__________________

20th April 2009, 04:48 PM	#8
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by leftysergeant But this one centers on Hoffman's blather. Dim bulb seems not to think it significant that the reagents are not uniformly distributed through the chips. Dude, that works for paint. The elements found are supposed to be in paint. Inhomogenous mixtures of incendiaries and explosives are generally useless. It's PAINT, you moron. Stick to teaching math, Hoffman. please read the update.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 04:55 PM	#9
fullflavormenthol Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 2,415	Okay, well it doesn't really provide anything new. There is still the issue of not being able to show that these chips are anything other than paint. Honestly this has been covered in the other threads. It is paint.
	__________________ "Burning people! He says what we're all thinking!" -GLaDOS

20th April 2009, 04:56 PM	#10
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 39,049	Originally Posted by Galileo The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did. No the scientists did not find the samples they were found by various individuals. Why did they have to go all the way to the Brooklyn bridge for a sample? I would think ground zero where the debris was would be the best place to find a sample of the debris. I quit buying bridges from strangers some time ago.

20th April 2009, 05:00 PM	#11
Holler Hoojer Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 422	Originally Posted by tsig No the scientists did not find the samples they were found by various individuals. Why did they have to go all the way to the Brooklyn bridge for a sample? I would think ground zero where the debris was would be the best place to find a sample of the debris. I quit buying bridges from strangers some time ago. Maybe the light was better there?

20th April 2009, 05:02 PM	#12
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	Originally Posted by Galileo The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did. repeating this lie doesn't make it true It has never been true since 9/11/2001 get a new act gallileo this one is getting quite old
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

20th April 2009, 05:05 PM	#13
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 18,863	Originally Posted by Galileo please read the update. He still shows inconsistant make-up from one chip or part of a chip to the next. Okay for paint, but it kills therm*te.

20th April 2009, 05:08 PM	#14
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 59,856	Originally Posted by Galileo The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did. Are you using "thermitic pyrotechnics" as a synonym for "paint chips"?

20th April 2009, 05:24 PM	#15
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by fullflavormenthol Okay, well it doesn't really provide anything new. There is still the issue of not being able to show that these chips are anything other than paint. Honestly this has been covered in the other threads. It is paint. This thread is about science. It is NOT about faith-based appeals to your "authority".
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 05:26 PM	#16
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by WildCat Are you using "thermitic pyrotechnics" as a synonym for "paint chips"? No, I am not.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 05:28 PM	#17
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Arus808 repeating this lie doesn't make it true It has never been true since 9/11/2001 get a new act gallileo this one is getting quite old you argue from faith-based authority, not from science. I would like to give a friendly warning to the JREFers: There are a lot of lurkers out there who come here to see if the thermite paper can be debunked based on science. If they come here and read these faith-based authority appeals, they will not be convinced.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 05:35 PM	#18
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862	Originally Posted by Galileo ... It will not be bogged down by conspiracy theories. So why did you post this in a conspiracy sub-forum, exactly? 911 at that... Quote: It will focus only on what the scientists found, and the science behind it If it's all sciency, and stuff, post in the SCIENCE forum!
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862

20th April 2009, 05:41 PM	#19
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862	Originally Posted by Galileo There are a lot of lurkers out there who come here to see if the thermite paper can be debunked based on science. If they come here and read these faith-based authority appeals, they will not be convinced. The funny thing is, you are the one running on blind faith, not us. You are right though, lurkers see you get demolished time, and time again! It doesn't help your side a bit!
Dog Town Banned Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,862	Last edited by Dog Town; 20th April 2009 at 05:44 PM.

20th April 2009, 05:44 PM	#20
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986	This is the Jim Hoffman that wrote this? Quote: The replacement of ceiling tiles throughout the building may have been done on any of a number of schedules. On the one hand the tiles could have been supplied as part of an maintenance contract and installed using the existing building maintenance staff doing what they thought of as normal building maintenance work. Since the new landlord had just taken over in late July of 2001, it wouldn't seem at all unusual to see some refurbishing, especially as unobtrusive as swapping out old ceiling tiles. Alternatively, the tiles could have been installed during overnight hours by a team of maintenance workers unnoticed by tenants. The logistics of such an operation can be imagined, and some estimates of human resources made. We know that the Towers had only two types of ceiling tiles: 20-inch squares for the tenant spaces and 12-inch squares for the core spaces. An estimate of the number of tiles per tower is 1,200,000 large tiles and 800,000 small tiles. The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles. With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of two tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of fourty workers 187 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in three weeks and weekends of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage. That Jim Hoffman?
boloboffin Guest Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 4,986

20th April 2009, 05:46 PM	#21
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	Fails at chain of custody Originally Posted by Galileo The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did. Ummm... No they didn't, A few citizens found the dust and held onto it for five years. And Hoffman fails in the first sentence with a bald assertion logical fallacy. Even if it were not simple paint and hypothetically was an incendiary. It fails at chain of custody. Dismissed
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

20th April 2009, 05:47 PM	#22
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Originally Posted by Galileo I would like to give a friendly warning to the JREFers: There are a lot of lurkers out there who come here to see if the thermite paper can be debunked based on science. . why don't you just let people think for themselves huh?
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

20th April 2009, 05:48 PM	#23
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Originally Posted by Galileo The scientists found them. You have not the WTC dust, the scientists did. this is an utter lie. please don't lie. what scientific degrees did the folks who found the specimens have?
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Last edited by Thunder; 20th April 2009 at 05:49 PM.

20th April 2009, 05:50 PM	#24
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,370	Originally Posted by Dog Town The funny thing is, you are the one running on blind faith, not us. You are right though, lurkers see you get demolished time, and time again! It doesn't help your side a bit! Yes. Galileo will NEVER get this. It is HE who is running on blind faith. The people here KNOW the science.
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

20th April 2009, 06:02 PM	#25
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Galileo- how are you going to deal with it...when this "monumental evidence" fails to get anything done?? how will u deal with another great truther failure? cause its coming soon. Truthers think this is gonna be their finest hour. But in fact, it will be the final nail in their coffin.
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Last edited by Thunder; 20th April 2009 at 06:07 PM.

20th April 2009, 06:03 PM	#26
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	Holy Ganole! Hoffmans a moron! Quote: The replacement of ceiling tiles throughout the building may have been done on any of a number of schedules. On the one hand the tiles could have been supplied as part of an maintenance contract and installed using the existing building maintenance staff doing what they thought of as normal building maintenance work. Since the new landlord had just taken over in late July of 2001, it wouldn't seem at all unusual to see some refurbishing, especially as unobtrusive as swapping out old ceiling tiles. Alternatively, the tiles could have been installed during overnight hours by a team of maintenance workers unnoticed by tenants. The logistics of such an operation can be imagined, and some estimates of human resources made. We know that the Towers had only two types of ceiling tiles: 20-inch squares for the tenant spaces and 12-inch squares for the core spaces. 20 inch? What the hell module is that? its 24X24 or 24X48, Quote: An estimate of the number of tiles per tower is 1,200,000 large tiles and 800,000 small tiles. Do over! get your module corrected! Quote: The new ceiling tiles with embedded thin-film explosives and wireless detonators are installed throughout every other floor of the Tower. In all, each Tower gets 500,000 of the large tiles and 400,000 of the small tiles. With workers swapping in new tiles at an average rate of two tiles per minute per worker, it takes a team of fourty workers 187 hours to retrofit an entire Tower. The work is performed in three weeks and weekends of night shifts, emptying one truckload per night, with the truck parking inconspicuously in the WTC subterranean parking garage. If you can find any crew that can change 120 ceiling tiles per man hour. You can do my ceilings for me. http://craftsman-book.com/products/i...9&detail=intro Quote: Placing the ceiling tile in the grid is a simple drop-in process except for borders, corners, lighting, columns and other nuisances. For a simple drop-in ceiling using an average price nonrated tile, the two person crew should be able to install around 250 square feet, or 32 tiles per hour. Tile prices vary depending on cut, style, texture and fire rating. Hoffman! Your a MORON!
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 7,032	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

20th April 2009, 06:05 PM	#27
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	Originally Posted by Galileo you argue from faith-based authority, not from science. not even true. I based my facts on the two NIST reports, and the independent reports from other SCHOLARS on the subject YOU are basing your opinion on the FAITH BASED fact free crap of Jones and Hoffman
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,204	__________________ Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato. “Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.” “Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”

20th April 2009, 06:15 PM	#28
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817	Strange that Galileo's clone keeps quoting other people's work. One would think he could do his own.
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 25,817

20th April 2009, 06:15 PM	#29
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	Quote: Specifically, the paper positively identifies an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material in each of several samples of dust from the destroyed skyscrapers, in the form of tiny chips having red and gray sides and sharing a very specific three-dimensional structure Ha, ha. No - anyone with a pair of eyes and a brain can see that the two layers do not share the same structure. However, I can confirm that yes, indeed these two layers are 3 dimensional! Wow! If you don't believe that these two structures are 3 dimensional just look at this! Advisory Warning - No you do not require 3D glasses to observe the following image. Yes, the gray side which doesn't contribute to the reaction as Harrit et al confirm, which has a completely different morphology and chemical composition to the other layer, because it's oxidised steel and the red layer is paint. Who'da thunk it eh? Someone painted some steel and a little insy- winsy bit spalled off and was found in some dust. Halle <rule 10> lujah! Quote: The basis and validity of this identification can [be] grasped quickly by anyone with a working knowledge of physics and chemistry. They need only read the paper's one-page conlusion (sic), [uneeded comma] and perhaps its section describing the provenance of the dust samples. So guess what folks, if you only have a working knowledge of Chemistry and Physics, which lets face it means sweet felicity arkwright, not only are you advised not to look at the data, but to go straight to the conclusions! Yo buddy! Got physics? Yeah! Ok, just forget about everything else and read the conclusions! Quote: The chips, whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material. Which they aren't. Samples a,b,c,d are different to the chip subjected to MEK (MEK chip) and again are different to the chip in Fig 31. See the moderated thread where I prove this is not the case. Quote: The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano-particles, each highly consistent in size and shape. No there is no nano-engineering involved, because none of the particles observed are 100nm or below - the estimates from the SEM photos are approximately 0.2µm or 200nm. Quote: A thin red layer is supported by a gray layer of homogenous material. Zooming in on the red layer shows it to be composed of two different types of particles embedded in a porous matrix: thin plates typically hexagonal in shape, and faceted grains. Well <rule 10> me! They actually describe something correctly! Quote: * The particles are very small: the plates being only about 40 nanometers thick, and the grains are only about 100 nanometers in diameter. * The particles are highly uniform in size and shape. This isn't too far off either. Quote: * The particles are intimately mixed in a highly consistent composition throughout the material. Balls. Just looking at the pictures shows random mixing. There is nothing consistent on a micro scale and no-one would expect them to be. Quote: These are all features of a nano-engineered material. It is not possible that such a material was formed as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Nope, no nano-noona engineering here just good old fashioned rust spalling from a steel surface and taking the paint with it. Wow, who would have thought that paint might contain small particles of things that make up paint. Quote: The red layers contain abundant aluminum, iron, and oxygen, where the iron is associated with oxygen, and the aluminum is mostly in a pure, elemental, form. Utter bollocks. They cannot tell this from the XEDS data and this is a pure lie. Where is the silicon? Why no mention of the silicon? Look it's right here in the paper! Wow! Who would have thought that these people would lie about what the paper says. Have they no idea that the analysis method used cannot determine what they are saying, let alone the fact that the platelets containing Aluminium also have significant amounts of Si and O showing that they are likely to be aluminosilicates and not pure aluminium (with an oxide layer)? Note: "MEK chip" has a red layer that is a different material to those other chips so the MEK test cannot confirm commercial pure Al @ 99% pure in the sample. (See moderated thread for further details). Quote: The relative quantities of aluminum, iron, and oxygen match those of the most common thermite formulation: Fe2O3 + 2 Al . No they don't! Even the paper shows that this is not the case. Stoichiometry anyone? FFS! Quote: The flat plates are mostly aluminum. Because the other elements are present in much smaller quantities, most of the aluminum must be in its (unstable) elemental form, unbound to oxygen and ready to react. Rubbish! Look at the graph! Show me where Al dominates! We see Si, O and C all of which have peaks equal or above the Al. (And yes I'm aware that peak ratios aren't everything but in this case it's taking the <rule 10>. This is either complete and utter unfamiliarity with SEM and EDS or a bare faced lie. FFS we can see with our own eyes that this is incorrect. Do people now understand why this severely <rule 10>'s me off? It's the bold faced lies that masquerade as some sort of scientific truth in the hope it traps the unaware. This isn't truth it's bollocks. They aren't even trying to quote from the MEK sample, which has a red layer that is of a different composition to that of samples a,b,c,d. They are telling a lie that even someone without knowledge of chemistry or physics can tell simply by looking at the data they refer to - namely Fig 11a (as above). Quote: The faceted grains are mostly iron and oxygen in the ratio of the Fe2O3 form of iron oxide, a compound that readily gives up its oxygen to aluminum once the reaction is started. True - the "faceted grains" are indeed rhomboidal or rhombohedral in nature and comprise of mostly Fe and O therefore one can safely say that they are Fe₂O₃, which is well known for this crystal structure. Quote: Thus, the two types of nano-particles in the red layer contain the two ingredients of thermite: pure aluminum and iron oxide. Furthermore, the red-layer matrix in which the particles are embedded in a highly uniform manner is mostly silicon and oxygen -- similar in composition to known variants of nano-thermite optimized for high explosive pressure. No they don't contain pure aluminium. The paper expressly shows that in Figs 5,7,8,9,10, 11 and 15. The platelets observed contain Si, O and C in significant quantities that cannot be over looked - there is no pure Al in these platelets. Quote: Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers. Correct. One thing is missing. The samples do not show a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite - unless you mean paint attached to rust. I just couldn't read anymore - I've got to go to work in the morning and actually deal with the real world and real engineering problems. "working knowledge of Chemistry and Physics" - and mathematics (and I define working as passed to a level an 18 year old is expected) is enough to be able to start your journey on a metallurgy/materials engineering degree course, however, it doesn't allow you to be knowledgeable before you take the course. You may have an understanding of flight and you may have flown a light aeroplane for a good few hours, but that does not make you qualified to comment on what the co-pilot is doing when he presses switches in a 747. Even worse is someone telling the co-pilot that he's doing it all wrong when that person has zero experience. I've no idea who Jim Hoffman is, but he hasn't had any experience in materials analysis or metallurgy/materials engineering. He gets the majority of things wrong - and this is supposed to be for anyone to understand? Well I guess if you tell people that 2+2 = 76.4 then those who don't know any better will think it's true. It's this level of BS that really annoys me as I suspect most sane readers can tell. The truth movement is made up of gullible unknowledgable fools who fall for this type of "crap analysis". Thank christ they are spending their time with this nonsense rather than being let loose in the real world designing things that millions of people rely upon daily. Edit: And why the <rule 10> do they not bother to read what an article says and then compare it to the paper. I don't expect a truther has actually read the paper twice in it's entirety let alone understand what it is saying. Goodnight.
Sunstealer Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,128	__________________ Proof that thermite was NOT discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe. Proof of Tnemec red primer paint in Harrit et al paper. Last edited by Sunstealer; 20th April 2009 at 06:16 PM.

20th April 2009, 06:19 PM	#30
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	so the truthers found red paint and rust?? wowowowowwowowo!!!! nice job guys!!
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918

20th April 2009, 06:21 PM	#31
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 7,474	Originally Posted by Galileo This thread is only about the three scientific points made by Jim Hoffman in his article, or related points about the science of the thermite paper. It is NOT about: * theories about chain-of-custody hoffmans paper is based on the assumption that the samples are uncontaminated WTC dust, therefore chain of custody is a primary point of discussion for this
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

20th April 2009, 06:27 PM	#32
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Check out these pics of recovered WTC steel. Notice the color of the steel. Thermite? I dont think so. http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912418.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912396.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912252.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912506.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912511.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24928806.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912199.jpg http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-08/24912513.jpg
Thunder Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 34,918	Last edited by Thunder; 20th April 2009 at 06:33 PM.

20th April 2009, 06:37 PM	#33
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by Dog Town So why did you post this in a conspiracy sub-forum, exactly? 911 at that... If it's all sciency, and stuff, post in the SCIENCE forum! This in the only sub-forum that gets much traffic here, the JREFers are into conspiracies, you know.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 06:41 PM	#34
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by boloboffin This is the Jim Hoffman that wrote this? That Jim Hoffman? The thermite has been found, the real question is to figure out how it got in there. You forgot that Hoffman says this is hypothetical, the title was: "A Hypothetical Blasting Scenario" If you can prove Hoffman's theory wrong, then please PM me. Hoffman is not making a claim that his theory is proven por even probable, only that it is possible and plausible. Otherwise, please stay on topic.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368

20th April 2009, 06:43 PM	#35
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368	Originally Posted by A W Smith Holy Ganole! Hoffmans a moron! 20 inch? What the hell module is that? its 24X24 or 24X48, Do over! get your module corrected! If you can find any crew that can change 120 ceiling tiles per man hour. You can do my ceilings for me. http://craftsman-book.com/products/i...9&detail=intro Hoffman! Your a MORON! this is a different paper, not the topic of this thread. Mods - please remove.
Galileo Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 3,368