Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple - Democratic Underground
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-23-09 09:41 PM
Original message
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

"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."

(snip)

1. Physical Structure

* The chips,whose structure is consistent from one sample to the next, are clearly an un-natural, manufactured material.
* The red layer is a nano-engineered composite, containing two types of nano-particles, each highly consistent in size and shape.

(snip)

2. Chemical Composition

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

(snip)

3. Thermal Behavior

# When the chips are heated to about 430ºC, they undergo a runaway chemical reaction producing temperatures of at least 1535ºC -- the melting point of iron.
# The residues produced by these reactions -- iron-rich spheres -- match those produced by igniting commercial thermite and particles found in WTC dust samples

(snip)

Conclusion

As this simplified summary of the findings of the paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe shows, the distinctive red-gray chips found consistently in dust samples from the destroyed Twin Towers are clearly an advanced engineered pyrotechnic material. It is not even remotely possible that the material could have been formed spontaneously through any random process such as the total destruction of the Twin Towers. Nor is it possible that the material was present in the Towers for some innocent reason.

The chips are clearly the unexploded remains of a pyrotechnic material -- likely a high explosive -- that was present in the Twin Towers in large quantities.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

The article includes photographs, graphs, links to further reading, and a glossary. Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-23-09 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's BACCKKKKK !!!!!!
What is "Active Thermitic Material"?

No one seems to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-23-09 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. 'No one seems to know'
Edited on Thu Apr-23-09 09:53 PM by rollingrock
speak for yourself, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 03:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Please, illuminate the world with your knowledge - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Theobald Donating Member (411 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. He can't and he won't even try. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. I suggest you do some reading
enlighten yourself





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Perhaps you could contact the authors of the paper for an answer to your question.
Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3...
*Address correspondence to these authors (NH) Department of Chemistry,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark;
Tel: (+45)35321846; Fax: (+45)35320460; E-mail: harrit@nano.ku.dk,
(SEJ) at S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA; Tel: 801-735-5885;
E-mail: Hardevidence@gmail.com

http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch9/activity.php

The Activity of Metals
The primary difference between metals is the ease with which they undergo chemical reactions. The elements toward the bottom left corner of the periodic table are the metals that are the most active in the sense of being the most reactive. … The rate of this reaction increases as we go down this column, however, because these elements become more active as they become more metallic.



Classifying Metals Based on Activity
The metals are often divided into four classes on the basis of their activity, as shown in the table below.
Common Metals Divided into Classes on the Basis of Their Activity
Class I Metals: The Active Metals
Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs (Group IA)
Ca, Sr, Ba (Group IIA)
Class II Metals: The Less Active Metals
Mg, Al, Zn, Mn
Class III Metals: The Structural Metals
Cr, Fe, Sn, Pb, Cu
Class IV Metals: The Coinage Metals
Ag, Au, Pt, Hg

http://www.shodor.org/unchem/advanced/redox/

(R)edox reactions are a family of reactions that are concerned with the transfer of electrons between species. Like acid-base reactions, redox reactions are a matched set -- you don't have an oxidation reaction without a reduction reaction happening at the same time. Oxidation refers to the loss of electrons, while reduction refers to the gain of electrons. Each reaction by itself is called a "half-reaction", simply because we need two (2) half-reactions to form a whole reaction.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

2 Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2 Fe
This is the chemical equation of the most common type of thermite reaction: Two atoms of aluminum react with a molecule of iron oxide to form a molecule of aluminum oxide and two atoms of iron. Because the aluminum holds the oxygen much more tightly than does the iron, the reaction releases a great deal of energy -- about three times as much per unit of weight as is released by conventional high explosives.

thermitic: Having the characteristics of thermite, and thus the ability to release large amounts of energy on ignition.
thermite: An energetic material that, when ignited, releases large amounts of energy thorough a chemical reaction in which oxygen is transferred from an oxidizer (such as iron oxide) to a fuel (such as aluminum).
nano-thermite: An advanced type of thermite in which the fuel (aluminum) and oxidizer (iron oxide) are in the form of intimately mixed nano-particles, generally embedded in a durable matrix.

From "Active Thermitic Material..." :
Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. By your definition all 'thermitic materials' would be 'active' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
14. Well thanks for the chemistry refresher, it's been a while
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 07:14 PM by LARED
since Chem 1, 2 and 3.

Having said that; Active is a useful terms for comparing the reaction potential between various materials and componds, but "Active Thermitic Materials" is meaningless. IMO it was placed in the "paper" by Jones etal as a rhetoric device to make the ignorant think something important was discovered.

The reality is there are dozens of thermitic materials in use everyday in all sorts of applications. Just because Jones etal found something that reacts at a very high temperature is wonderful but rather mundane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #14
33. I remember reading that the anthrax that was used after 9/11
to murder was everyday stuff that anyone could make. Turned out it was trillion spore anthrax and only a few people knew how to get it so highly refined.

If the material found in the dust is truly mundane, it ought to easy to identify. Someone should write a paper....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Why would you write a paper on something so mundane?
I don't see very many papers published these days on the notion that the earth is spherical (or roughly so - there's a bulge at the equator). A small, select group of people are convinced the components of Jones' samples present something other than what would be expected. It's up to them to produce convincing arguments, since their claims are the extraordinary ones. So far, they have not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #33
39. You point out a significat flaw in Jones etal's paper
No one actually tried to identify the material.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Re: What is "Active Thermitic Material"?
The authors make the distinction that they found thermite in its original unreacted state, as you can see by a similar distinction in the abstract:

The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.


Clearly, active in the phrase active thermitic material is intended to emphasize that they found unreacted thermite. They also found what they believe to be the residue of a thermite reaction and they wanted to be clear when they were talking about thermite pre-reaction and when they were talking about thermite post-reaction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Oh, snap
starting to get the picture now, boys and girls?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Sometimes a picture needs painting
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Realityhack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. The paper does not prove they found thermite.
Far from it. It is highly flawed as has been discussed before.
Furthermore using the term 'active' to describe something as 'unreacted' doesn't make any more sense than the other explanations that have been thrown out as the post reaction material is no longer described as a 'thermic material'.

The term 'active' in this instance does not seem to have any meaning. I have yet to see anyone point to where a working definition is provided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. For the dummies, with lots of pictures!
an unlit exploding cigar = active/unreacted, or meaning 'unburnt'












Kaboom! - now rendered (mostly) inactive


I say mostly inactive because after any explosive device goes off there is commonly some still active leftover residue left behind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. So on the package does it say
Edited on Fri Apr-24-09 06:43 PM by LARED
Active Exploding Cigars?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. No but I guess they could if they wanted to
they could also put 'cancer sticks' on cigarettes boxes, but they don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Perhaps Jones can enter another field he lacks
understanding, and develop a new marketing strategy for the "Active Exploding Cigar" brand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. That was so funny
I forgot to laugh.

don't quit your day job (if you have one).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 06:15 AM
Response to Reply #1
25. Self delete. n/t
Edited on Sat Apr-25-09 06:46 AM by eomer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
16. What is "inactive" thermetic material?
A container of iron oxide next to one of aluminum powder?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-24-09 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. residue
If active thermitic material is unreacted, then inactive thermitic material would be reacted thermitic material--residue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. So active thermitic material is... thermite.
And inactive thermitic material is thermite residue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 01:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Do you suppose it's possible
the authors might have a reason for the specific terminology used that we laymen might not be aware of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 01:15 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. I believe that is what LARED is suggesting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #23
27. Without basis...
LARED is attacking ad hominem without basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. When someone can explain the basis of Jones etal
using the term "Active Thermitic Materials", then maybe we have something to argue about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. What is your basis
for suggesting the authors used the terminology for a dishonest purpose?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Dishonest is a strong word
At least one of the authors is dishonest; Kevin Ryan. The conclusions of the paper is borderline dishonest, but few have the materials science background and understanding to see that.

I would call it an embellishment, most likely out of a desire to provide the truther community with something that sounds important in order to gain a wider distribution. There is always the possibility it was used out of plain old ignorance as it appears than none of the authors have any background in materials science. A rather large red flag.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. My basis for suggesting authorial dishonesty
is the way they are trying to pass off paint chips as thermite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. So...
if the chips look like paint chips, then they are paint chips?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #40
42. The authors of the paper certainly didn't do their due dilligence in ruling it out. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #42
43. According to whom? nt
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Are you seriously suggesting it isn't blindingly obvious?
Maybe you haven't read the actual paper, or maybe you aren't much for technical literature in general. Those of us who have can see the significant flaws within. For example, the identification of the chips. The authors make a big deal of their dismissal of paint as an alternative, even devoting a section at the end of the paper to the question. What is clear, however, is that they did not take the time to determine what paint or primers were used in the WTC towers (not a difficult task) nor did they identify the paints they used in their comparison tests, which were not effective comparisons anyway (not all paints are soluble in MEK, for example). Instead, they pretend to be using the scientific method when the reality is quite different - this paper is propaganda, not science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #45
63. self-deleted
Edited on Sat Apr-25-09 12:44 PM by procopia
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #45
64. Do you speak for everyone who has read it?
Because many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read it and they disagree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. Sure they have
Because many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read it and they disagree with you.

Like whom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #66
86. Like these...
"Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France...We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers," according to Dr. Steven Jones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:16 AM
Response to Reply #86
92. do you have any background in science?
If you want to establish that scientists are "qualified and highly credentialed," identifying one of them as a "physicist" and the other as "in New Hampshire" is not really the way to go about it. (Quoting Steven Jones isn't, either, but never mind that.)

Henry-Couannier seems to do most of his work on dark matter. Very cool, but it's not obvious how it qualifies him to hold forth on thermite, whatever it is that he intends to say about it.

Of course, if the arguments are inherently compelling, the qualifications don't matter -- and if the arguments are inherently uncompelling, they don't matter either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #92
93. Address the science
instead of resorting to JREF playbook tactic #3:

(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”

Now a physicist isn't highly credentialed? I don't know Basile's background, except that as a chemical engineer he is certainly as qualified as most of "those who have read the paper and find it flawed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #93
94. defend your argument instead of moving the goalposts
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 07:19 AM by OnTheOtherHand
The science has already been addressed in other threads. You're the person who dragged in credentialism back at post #64 -- it isn't my problem. (ETA: And if you don't see any salient difference between dark matter and thermite, of course that isn't my problem either.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #94
96. That's what I did
You said those who had read the paper found significant flaws. I said qualified and highly credentialed people disagree with you. You said, "Like who?" I named a physicist and a chemical engineer. You moved the goalposts, not I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. moving the goalposts again
In fact, what you asserted is that "many qualified and highly credentialed scientists" have read the paper. That's an interesting question in itself: how many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read the paper, regardless of their opinions about it?

Incidentally, being a physicist is certainly a credential, but not necessarily a qualification in this instance. I heard a lot about all the Ph.D.s who thought that the exit polls provided evidence of fraud in 2004. It didn't seem to matter much that all together they had almost no experience in survey research, that the people who did have experience in survey research thought they were out to lunch, or that their arguments were poor. So, I sort of feel that I have seen this movie before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #97
102. No, just disproving your assertion
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 08:41 AM by procopia
Do you doubt that many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read the paper? How many is irrelevant. There were nine authors, all them qualified and highly credentialed. The first author is a nano-chemistry expert. There were multiple peer reviewers. Chemical engineer Mark Basile and French physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier have not only read it, they have corroborated it. Others in the truth community, like Jim Hoffman and Tony Szamboti have read it. Dr. Greening has read it and asked questions (which were answered), but to my knowledge, he has not claimed the paper is "flawed".

You asserted that those who have read it found it to have "significant flaws". Your assertion is incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. You don't need to be a materials scientist to see that the paper has "significant flaws"
Even if you take the data at face value, the paper's conclusions are simply and clearly not substantiated. First, the paper completely fails to prove that it's any kind of "thermitic material," even an accidental one -- specifically, it fails to demonstrate a signature matching any known thermite, thermate, or nanothermite, and it fails even to demonstrate that it contains any elemental aluminum at all (rather than just aluminum oxide). It actually proves that the material ignites at a lower temperature than any known form of thermite -- a temperature more in line with many ordinary materials. The paper offers nothing but indirect and inconclusive evidence that there was any thermitic redox reaction at all, with zero analysis of what percentage of this "highly energetic" material might have been involved. Rather, it calls the material "highly energetic" based on its energy density, saying that when burned, it released more energy per gram than explosives like TNT and RDX, completely ignoring that things like jet fuel and paper have many times the energy of any of those things. Surely, these "qualified and highly credentialed" authors know that it isn't energy density but rather release rate that makes a material explosive.

Nonetheless, these "qualified and highly credentialed" authors merely assume that it's some type thermite, even though it doesn't really look like one, and if it's thermite it must be nanothermite, and since nanothermite is explosive, this stuff that looks exactly like paint chips must be a "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material," with no serious attempt whatsoever made to rule out paint or other mundane material. The section claiming to have ruled out paint is a complete joke.

There's no way in hell this paper would have been published in a reputable journal with real peer review. When a paper is that flawed, if you point to people who haven't found any flaws, you're simply raising questions about their competence, not buttressing the paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #103
150. Here's a materials scientist who read the paper...
David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

This is what he said about it:

"...I have just read the Harrit et al. paper cover-to-cover with great relish. You see, I have been highly active in the field of inorganic materials physics for 43 years following receipt of my Ph.D. – and this paper ranks among the top 2% of the thousands of papers I have read in this field and the more than 500 on which I have been a referee!

"...I especially enjoyed the Harrit et al. paper because in reading it I could see the full complexity of he research necessary to deduce the nature of the red/gray chips they discovered, the authors’ wise selection of a battery of experimental methods adequate to this goal, their dedication to taking sufficient data to establish indisputable patterns, and finally their very careful consideration of what their evidence permits them to conclude with certainty and what remains to be learned from future experimentation.

"...So it’s perfectly obvious to me that Harrit et al. have done a terrific job of proving that the dust generated in the collapses of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 contains a ubiquitous thermitic component – which is not of a commercial nature, given the nano-structuring they demonstrated. Indeed, the only known nano-thermites in existence prior to 9/11 were those created in large, generally defense-related research laboratories. This is something Americans need to know."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/Pardon-Our-Dust-or-Why-t-by-Michael-Green-090417-989.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:17 AM
Response to Reply #150
156. Well, good.
It shouldn't be too difficult to get this paper published in an actual chemical physics journal. Do let us know when that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 05:37 AM
Response to Reply #150
160. "I find 100% probability that the op-scan tallies were hacked!"
Edited on Mon Apr-27-09 05:39 AM by OnTheOtherHand
Binomial analysis: Was the New Hampshire Primary Stolen on Behalf of Hillary?
SOURCE: OpEdNews.com

January 31, 2008

By David Griscom

Many election-integrity activists with good mathematical intuitions looked at the returns and exclaimed, “That just couldn’t have happened by accident.” What they were speaking of, of course, was the fact that Barack Obama led Hillary Clinton by 53.25% to 46.75% in the 35,864 votes cast for one or the other of them on hand-counted paper ballots (HCPBs), whereas he lost to her by 47.27% to 52.73% of the 81,753 computer-counted votes cast for one or the other of them on optical scanners (op-scans)....

While I’m not a Born or an Oppenheimer, I am an accomplished physicist (http://impactglassresearchinternational.com ). So, what should I care if anyone should nit-pick the assumption I found necessary – and appropriate – for purposes of calculating the probability that the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest in New Hampshire was honest?

Here’s what I know to be true (no assumptions yet): The boundaries between the HCPB precincts and the op-scan precincts in New Hampshire were laid out years ago by individuals who could not possibly have foreseen the Obama-Clinton contest of 8 January 2008. ...Therefore I assume that, from the standpoint of the Obama-Clinton primary contest, these boundaries (between HCPB and op-scan jurisdictions) were chosen randomly.

Shades of Born-Oppenheimer. Under this modest assumption, instructive results can be obtained by proper application of statistics. And when I did perform the appropriate Binomial Statistical calculations, the results I got for the outcome of the Obama-Clinton contest were absolutely stunning - – perhaps they will stand as the all-time record for the degree of “statistical impossibility” of any putatively accidental election anomaly!...

In other words, I find 100% probability that the op-scan tallies were hacked!

http://www.democracyfornewhampshire.com/node/view/5413

Riiiight. And from the standpoint of the Obama-McCain election, state boundaries were chosen randomly -- by individuals who could not possibly have foreseen the election -- so I find 100% probability that McCain stole Utah! Doh.

This fellow may actually be qualified to discuss thermite -- I don't know. (ETA: His bio at impactglassresearchinternational.com leaves me to wonder; he does seem to know a lot about glass, and at least he clearly has done work in materials science.) But based on this exploit, I have ample reason to doubt his judgment. And the overlap between election fraud woo and 9/11 woo continues to amuse me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #160
222. Amused because...
there are obviously no such things as either election fraud or conspiracies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #222
229. oh, for pity's sake
Could you at least try, or even pretend, to address my substantive points instead of just making stuff up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #150
161. After reading this it seems only one thing comes to mind
whores can earn PHD's

This is kind'a cute also

given the nano-structuring they demonstrated.

I have read the paper in full at least twice and have found this nowhere. Perhaps I missed it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #161
165. no, I think that's the wrong conclusion from these premises
It does seem that some PhDs will say anything for the right price, but I think that is not at all the issue here. It would be unfair to Griscom to let that stand without a response.

As far as I can tell, the issue here is that people -- even people trained in scientific methods -- have a strong propensity to believe what they want to believe, and not to think through the implications of their assumptions. Scientific training may even lull some people into false confidence in their own objectivity. I think that is true of Griscom here. Both in the election context and in the nano-JONES context, he seems to have scanted some issues that hinge not on expertise but on a modicum of critical distance.

I try to marinate in disagreement in order to avoid this fate myself. The danger is that when the disagreement is too poorly reasoned, it may actually tend to reinforce overconfidence instead of reducing it.

The thing about nano-structuring -- well, yes, that does seem to go beyond anything actually in the paper. Perhaps the business at the end of p. 27 (pdf p. 21)? (I'm inclined to stipulate that Griscom is referring to something, whether or not he has it right.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #165
208. I can't be so charitable
To quote Griscom

"...I have just read the Harrit et al. paper cover-to-cover with great relish. You see, I have been highly active in the field of inorganic materials physics for 43 years following receipt of my Ph.D. – and this paper ranks among the top 2% of the thousands of papers I have read in this field and the more than 500 on which I have been a referee!

"...I especially enjoyed the Harrit et al. paper because in reading it I could see the full complexity of he research necessary to deduce the nature of the red/gray chips they discovered, the authors’ wise selection of a battery of experimental methods adequate to this goal, their dedication to taking sufficient data to establish indisputable patterns, and finally their very careful consideration of what their evidence permits them to conclude with certainty and what remains to be learned from future experimentation.

"...So it’s perfectly obvious to me that Harrit et al. have done a terrific job of proving that the dust generated in the collapses of the WTC towers on 9/11/01 contains a ubiquitous thermitic component – which is not of a commercial nature, given the nano-structuring they demonstrated. Indeed, the only known nano-thermites in existence prior to 9/11 were those created in large, generally defense-related research laboratories. This is something Americans need to know."


Sorry but this reads as nothing less than taunting in my view. Reading with great relish, top 2% out of thousands, especially enjoyed, wise selection of a battery of experiments, etc, etc. Give me a break, if I know that's nonsense he must. I find it impossible that someone with his background and education could possibly believe what he's writing. This is a game to him. Or maybe he just need to polish up his 9/11 truther image on a regular basis to keep funds coming.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #208
212. "if I know that's nonsense he must"
LARED, that's facially reasonable -- and I know just what you mean -- but I have become convinced that it is fallacious. There is almost no limit to how stupid smart people can be.

One of my friends told me a story once about a particular 'conspiracy theory' he had hatched pretty much on his own, and how at some point he really did start to interpret all the evidence against the theory as evidence for it. Finally, a datum came along that was sufficiently disconfirming to cause him to reevaluate all his reasoning, at which point he thought, "How could I have been so bizarrely stupid about that?" Well, it's a form of human creativity. We can look at two stars in the sky and see a dog's tail.

I'm not sure what the crucial test would be to disambiguate deep confusion from willful hokum, but I think your statement actually points in the opposite direction. Don't you suppose Griscom is smart enough that if he set out to write willful hokum, he could fool you better? (Maybe not, but it's at least a consideration.)

And is there any reason to think that Griscom personally profits from this issue? I think it's not only unfair but harmful to assume that people can't be honestly wrong about these matters, because it tends to transmute fecklessness into martyrdom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:36 PM
Response to Reply #212
214. That's why I say...
never attribute to malicious intent that which can be explained by blindness or stupidity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #214
220. I'm uneasy with that saying, but I can accept it with a clarification(?)
Never confidently attribute to malicious intent that which can be explained by blindness or stupidity -- depending, of course, on the relative force of the alternative explanations. I'm not required to believe in the fundamental benevolence of Bernie Madoff. Folks are entitled to harbor suspicions of "LIHOP," at least in the absence of disambiguating evidence. And so on. The problem comes when people leap to the conclusion of malice when the facts readily admit of alternative interpretations.

Many years ago I got to participate in a simulated "crisis game." A bunch of mostly dovish undergrads faced off in a new Berlin crisis; as a "runner," I got to listen to deliberations on both sides. Within the first hour or so, the Soviet side rolled some tanks as a precaution, and the NATO side freaked. A textbook spiral of misinterpretations ensued. In the end, neither side started an all-out war, but both were sorely tempted.

Conspiracists famously seem predisposed to presume malice, but I think we all have that capacity. It's adaptive in some circumstances. Presuming benignity can be a very dangerous play. Eh, sometimes life just sucks. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #220
225. Fair enough.
I accept the revision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #161
223. Kind of like
NIST found no evidence of explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #223
310. You mean the FBI right? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snooper2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #150
307. Oh, David L. Griscom, PhD sure is one unbiased opinion
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.impactglassresearchinternational.com/Political.html

Hey, Dude! What Are They Doing to Our Country?

9/11 Was an Inside Job!

Just because the mainstream media "don't go there,"
doesn't mean it's not true.

The military-industrial complex had the motive,
the means, and the opportunity!

How could they have pulled it off? Check out Dave's
carefully researched hypotheses.

Did the World Trade Center towers collapse due to the
jetliner impacts and fires, or were they blown up?
Read Dave's analysis.




Nice beard though :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #307
308. Everyone is biased
Everyone has an opinion. Griscom is a highly respected scientist with a long and impressive resume. He has more at risk by endorsing this paper than most people, and that's why his endorsement carries more weight. What does his beard have to do with anything?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. if you can't be bothered to read the thread, don't trust your memory
You asserted that those who have read it found it to have "significant flaws".

No, I didn't. It's really bad form to treat other people's arguments and words as interchangeable, IMHO.

Backing up:
Do you doubt that many qualified and highly credentialed scientists have read the paper?

Yes, I do.

How many is irrelevant. There were nine authors, all them qualified and highly credentialed.

So far, you haven't demonstrated the relevant qualifications of any of them, much less "many."

The first author is a nano-chemistry expert.

What, if anything, qualifies him to opine on the identification of "active thermitic material"? I'm not in a position to say that he isn't]/i] qualified; I'm just looking for relevant information. Weird habit of mine.

There were multiple peer reviewers.

We don't know who they were or what their qualifications were -- and in case you've missed this, Bentham's open access series isn't really entitled to a presumption of competence at this point. If the authors had had their work published in an established journal of high reputation, I would have more confidence in the quality of the peer review.

Chemical engineer Mark Basile and French physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier have not only read it, they have corroborated it.

So far you've offered only Steve Jones's word for that, but the question remains: what qualifies these people to opine on thermite?

Others in the truth community, like Jim Hoffman and Tony Szamboti have read it. Dr. Greening has read it and asked questions (which were answered), but to my knowledge, he has not claimed the paper is "flawed".

I suppose these points address claims I didn't make. If you actually have reason to think that Dr. Greening believes that indeed the article offers support for a controlled demolition hypothesis, I would be interested to learn more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Well, this is funny
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 02:18 PM by procopia
First one OCTist responds that one doesn't need to be material scientist to find flaws in the paper, and the next OCTist responds that even with advanced degrees, one also needs a specific area of expertise to endorse it. Oh, the irony!

Edited to add: OTOH, why can't you just admit you made a broad sweeping generalization that simply isn't true?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #107
114. why can't you just admit that you flat-out misquoted me?!
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 02:36 PM by OnTheOtherHand
If you want to disagree with something I wrote, I do ask that you disagree with something I wrote. Seems reasonable to me.

Instead, you continue to move the goalposts:

...the next OCTist responds that even with advanced degrees, one also needs a specific area of expertise to endorse it.

No, I didn't say that, and that is ridiculous. Anyone whatsoever can endorse the paper. No need even to read it.

I do believe that your assertion about "qualified and highly credentialed scientists" implies or should imply some prior knowledge of the subject matter of the paper. Perhaps you intended to refer to scientists who are "qualified" to talk about something, albeit not to talk about thermite. In that case, my response should be not 'you haven't demonstrated that' but 'it doesn't even matter whether that is true.'

There is no tension whatsoever between saying that one doesn't need to be a material scientist to find flaws in the paper, and saying that your claim about the scientists who have read it is unsupported. That said, I don't think it would count as "irony" if two people who you consider "OCTist(s)" disagreed; it would just underscore the poverty of your analytical categories.

(edit to correct typo)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #114
118. More distractions
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 03:40 PM by procopia
My words:

"You asserted that those who have read it found it to have 'significant flaws'."

Your actual words:

"Those of us who have can see the significant flaws within."

What is the difference in meaning? If there were any difference, you might be justified in raising a ruckus about it. There is no difference, and as such, you are just creating a distraction. That's what posters do when they have nothing significant to offer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #118
129. hello? hello?! RTFT -- those are not my words!!!!
Was my previous subtle hint to that effect not sufficiently clear for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #129
130. procopia appears to be confusing posts.
Her quote is from post #45, which wasn't one of yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #130
134. indeed the very nub of my gist ;) n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #107
132. Well, your confusion seems to come from a basic lack of understanding of the issues
What OTOH is saying is that only specialists are qualified to judge the technical content of the paper, which is absolutely true. What I said was, "even taking the data at face value" (despite the dubious reasons for doing that), the paper jumps to unwarranted and rash conclusions not supported by that data. In other words, you do need to be a materials scientist to find flaws in the data, but you don't need to be a materials scientist to see the gaping holes in the logic of the paper.

Does that help?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #132
135. FWIW the claim I had in mind is slightly weaker
I doubt there is one kind of specialist who is completely and exclusively qualified to judge all the technical content (not that you said otherwise). I do think that if someone avers that many "qualified" scientists have reviewed it, that the qualifications should be relevant to the subject.

I agree about the logical holes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #132
141. No, the confusion comes from all OCTists sounding alike
Steven Jones probably has, what, 30 years experience? Published, what, 40 articles in scientific journals? And the 8 other authors? I believe they know something about research, thanks anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #141
145. Yeah, I'm sure they know enough about research...
... to know that submitting that piece o' crap to a real peer-reviewed journal would have been a complete waste of time. The boyz could still do that and settle any issues about that, once and for all. That's exactly what they would do if they had any real confidence in their analysis and conclusions, because surely they know that's what it would take for their hypothesis to be widely accepted as the smoking gun they claim it to be. But I'd bet money at short odds they won't do anything like that. They seem to be quite content that their little fan club doesn't know the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #145
148. Samo samo
Ad homs. Why don't you OCTists learn some new tricks? :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #148
151. I noticed you didn't respond to my criticism of the paper above
... in post #103, and then you just tried to duck under the point I made in post #132 by pretending to respond while ignoring what I said. But now you say, "Ad homs. Why don't you OCTists learn some new tricks?" You're the one who could use some new tricks -- that "ad hom" one is long since worn out -- and learning the actual meaning of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem">ad hominem wouldn't hurt.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #151
152. RTFT
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #152
153. But I have RTFT
Your laughable "response" to my criticism was to illustrate the last point I made: "When a paper is that flawed, if you point to people who haven't found any flaws, you're simply raising questions about their competence, not buttressing the paper." Why do you think I should be impressed with Griscom's glowing approval -- a guy who, btw, was already a noted conspiracy theorist who thinks all the 9/11 plane passengers are still alive, among other things -- when I pointed you to very specific logic errors and shortcomings that you can examine for yourself? Did you even attempt to see if I was correct? Why should I accept Griscom's pronouncement that the paper proves the material is thermite when it's painfully obvious that it does no such thing? You suggest I should accept that just because of his background, but what his background indicates to me is that perhaps Griscom is really more interested in any kind of confirmation of previously held crackpot theories than he is in looking for good science. And, btw, since Bentham allows authors to select their own "peer reviewers," was Griscom a reviewer? If so, that would be a clue how such a flawed paper got past review, huh.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #153
154. You're sounding desperate
Especially when you disparage the competence of someone with Griscom's resume. I'm aware Griscom has been ridiculed for his survivor theory, but all 9/11 theories have been ridiculed, and none sound more absurd than the OCT.

Bentham does not allow authors to select their own peer reviewers, the editors do. As in other journals, authors may recommend reviewers, but editors choose at least some reviewers not recommended by the authors. The reviewers remain anonymous.

"when I pointed you to very specific logic errors and shortcomings that you can examine for yourself? Did you even attempt to see if I was correct?"

If the errors are as obvious as you say, why don't you submit a rebuttal paper to a scientific journal? It's the only way your criticism is meaningful. Until then, I will rely on the opinion of those who have been published (and cited)--many, many, many times.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #154
155. You're sounding like you got nothin' at all
... except your appeal to authority fallacies. Good luck with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #155
157. Expert opinion is something
Griscom's opinion is about as expert as you will find.

About the paint chip theory...

Dr. Frank Greening posted this at the the911forum.freeforums.org regarding WTC paint:

"It's quite difficult to get much information on the WTC primer paint but it is mentioned in Appendix D of NIST NCSTAR 1-3C, pages 433 - 438. Here you find a Table D-1 which gives the chemical composition of the primer. The main inorganic constituents are iron oxide, "zinc yellow", "Tnemec pigment of proprietary composition" and diatomaceous silica.
Now the Tnemec pigment caught my eye, but the fact that it's described as having a "proprietary composition" suggests that this material's chemical ingredients are "top secret". However, in the modern world of "right-to-know" legislation, you can determine the composition of just about any proprietary material by looking up its associated MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet).
I have done this for Tnemec's Series 010 Red Primer and this is what I have found reported as the ingredients:

Iron-oxide fume
Zinc compounds with traces of cobalt
Quartz and amorphous silica (SiO2)
Talc (Mg3Si4O10(OH)2)
Calcium Silicates and Aluminates

Now here lies the rub: Jone's red chips do not contain zinc, although some WTC iron-rich particles do indeed contain significant amounts of zinc. Nevertheless, zinc is essentially absent from Jones' red chips, thus it looks like these mystery particles are definitely not paint chips."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #157
158. Oh? And what was the formula in the 60s?
There is a completely simple and trivial way to rule out the actual WTC paint: Test some. Another serious flaw in the paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #158
168. IIRC Greening has revised his opinion anyway. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #168
233. Revised?
Are you saying that Greening now thinks the chips are paint? link?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 08:02 AM
Response to Reply #233
237. He seems to think that at least some of the chips...
might be primer.

Greening's post you quoted (but did not source) in post #157

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/active-thermitic-material-in-wtc-dust-t150-15.html#p2628">Greening's post a few days later, from the same thread

Hambone,

Yes, I have seen the XEDS spectrum in Figure 14 of Jones et al's new paper and it does show a small zinc peak. However, there are also the two sets of XEDS spectra in Figures 6 and 7 which are allegedly taken from the gray (Figure 6) and the red (Figure 7) layers of the chips and these show absolutely no zinc. Thus I was assuming that Figures 6 and 7 are most typical of the composition of the chips and we see the spectra in these Figures show peaks from C, O, Al, Si, and Fe only. This is certainly consistent with what Jones et al. state in the conclusion section of their paper.

Looking at the Figure 14 spectrum, which has Ca, Cr and Zn in addition to C, O, Al, Si, and Fe, I would suggest that the Figure 14 spectrum is from material containing primer paint chips, but this is clearly quite different to the material that gave the Figure 6 and 7 spectra.

Certainly Jones et al. should have pointed this out and should have considered Tnemec primer as a source of at least some of their red chips


He may have changed/elaborated his position later, but I haven't read the rest of the thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #158
172. Ask Dr. Greening
Or maybe you could do the research yourself? Where would you get WTC paint samples for testing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #172
182. Why should we do what Jones should have done in the first place?
You're trying to give him a pass on his egregious error.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #182
192. Because,
in the first place, I'm not so sure the evidence was available to anyone who requested it. Secondly, why would you ask Jones to do your research if you are the one supposedly rebutting his paper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #192
195. Because it is Jones' responsibility to falsify his hypothesis as best he can.
He has done precisely the opposite. He has put together a sham paper that pays lip service to falsifying his claims and published it in a open access journal available only on the Internet, published in Pakistan for pay, and with demonstrably suspect publishing tactics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #195
198. I don't know what's so complicated.
It's quite obvious what Jones and the other authors have done. Fortunately for them, people like procopia are either unwilling or unable to see the scam for what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #172
185. Jones says he HAS steel samples
... and if none of them have any paint on them, there are large piles of the stuff in a hangar at JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #185
193. How do you know
the chips came from the steel? Couldn't they have come from interior walls, etc?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #193
194. If they look exactly like the steel rustproofing
... shouldn't that be the first thing a competent research project should check? But yes, if it's not that, there are still a lot of things that would need to be ruled out before the ridiculous idea of thermite paint would become plausible. This "reer reviewed" paper ruled out exactly zero of them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-30-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #194
245. The WTC collapses looked exactly like
controlled demolition. Shouldn't that be the first thing a competent research project should check?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #245
253. The tower collapses look NOTHING AT ALL like a controlled demolition
... using explosives. Not only do they start at the top, but the clouds of dust and smoke and even the "squibs" don't look anything like the very rapidly expanding cloud of smoke from a demolition charge: They look exactly like they are driven by escaping air. (If you can't see the difference, try stepping through the collapse videos and some CD videos frame by frame.)

They do, however, look VERY MUCH like the http://www.strimoo.com/video/12509995/Mort-d-un-batiment-MySpaceVideos.html">gravity-driven demolition of the Balzac-Vitry building.

Could be a clue there, Sherlock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #253
256. WTC 7, especially, looked exactly like a controlled demolition
How can you claim it didn't? Control demolitionist Jowenko identified it as "absolutely" a controlled demolition. Also, there have been other cases of top-down controlled demolitions.

The Balzac-Vitry building was a controlled demolition and does not resemble the towers. The supports were placed closer to the middle of the building and removed to fail simultaneously, which is
extremely unlikely with fire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #256
259. Jowenko didn't arrive at that conclusion on his own...
the people who set up the interview showed him what they wanted him to see which, if you pay attention, we don't get to see. One of the ways we know it wasn't a controlled demolition is the span of time from the collapse of the penthouse to the collapse of the remainder of the building, something most "truther videos" leave out entirely. How do you know what Jowenko was shown?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #259
260. Yes, he did
Edited on Fri May-01-09 12:37 PM by procopia
According to the Dutch Public television documentary Zembla, Jowenko was shown a video of the collapse. Do you have evidence that he wasn't shown a video of the WTC 7 collapse? It doesn't matter which video he saw or what portion of a video he saw, any video of the WTC 7 collapse or any portion of one looks exactly like controlled demolition, as any honest observer would tell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #260
261. Wrong, again....
If he was shown a video that starts AFTER the penthouse has already collapsed, that is a false representation, as there was a significant delay (I seem to recall 8-10 seconds) which would NOT be "just like a controlled demolition". Secondly, if he was looking at standard video of the collapse (whether it includes the penthouse collapse or not), the reality is the view of the lower part of the building is obstructed by other buildings so it would be impossible to tell that the collapse initiated on or close to the bottom floor. Jowenko was gamed and, more importantly, he states clearly that WTC 1 & 2 were NOT controlled demolition, which raises the question, why bring down only one of the three buildings by that method. In fact, I think it's hysterical that "truthers" only cite Jowenko with respect to WTC 7 and omit the fact he concludes otherwise about WTC 1&2. Some "truth" movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #261
263. Ridiculous
A five second delay after the collapse of the penthouse doesn't make it look unlike a controlled demolition. Look at any video of any controlled demolition and in most of them you will see similar delays or pauses.

Jowenko said the towers didn't look like controlled demolition because of the time it would take to set up the explosives. As we have learned, that isn't necessarily a factor. Jowenko wasn't "gamed." He was simply asked if the WTC 7 collapse video was a controlled demolition. I doubt if he would have said, "absolutely," if there were any factors in question. The WTC 7, especially, looks like a classic controlled demolition in any video available. If you were honest, you would argue that although it looks like a controlled demolition, that doesn't mean it necessarily is one. Denial of the obvious strains your credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #263
266. Except it doesn't look "just like a controlled demolition"...
that is my problem...does it look somewhat like a controlled demolition? Somewhat. Does it look "just like a controlled demolition"? No, it doesn't and the penthouse is a clear example of that. Of course controlled demolitions are sequenced, so there are slight pauses as the building totally collapses. However, if it's a controlled demolition, what would be the point of having the penthouse collapse so much earlier than the rest of the building? I would think that demonstrates that the penthouse and the rest of the building were somewhat independent of each other and, other different circumstances, the penthouse might have collapsed but not the rest of the building (although I am guessing at that).

Again, the other issue is that the view of the bottom floors is obstructed by buildings in front of it in the video (I don't remember how many stories...I'm thinking at least 15-20, not sure) so it would have been impossible for Jowenko to determine where the collapse was initiating. Sorry, this is no "smoking gun" and, in fact, is much more like a cap pistol.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #266
269. It's about 30 floors obscured in most views of the tower. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #266
275. To any objective person, it does
I didn't say WTC 7 was a smoking gun. I said it looked like control demolition. It has many characteristics of controlled demolition, and not one characteristic of collapse by fire.

The only way any steel framed building has ever totally collapsed at near free fall speed into its own footprint was by controlled demolition, and that's why the WTC 7 collapse looked like controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #275
276. First of all...
Edited on Fri May-01-09 10:07 PM by SDuderstadt
it didn't fall at "near free-fall speed". That's yet one more myth from "truthers". The only way they can try to make that claim is to dishonestly start the clock AFTER the penthouse has already collapsed when is obviously not when the collapse started. Similarly, if the view of the building was obscured by buildings in the way, how would anyone know when to stop the clock?

Do you want to honestly compare WTC 7 to the collapse of another building? Fine. The you will have to find:


1) Another 47 story building that took up an entire city block and

2) was a tube-in-a-tube-design and

3) that had a further unique design because it was built over an electrical substation and

4) had unfought fires raging for hours

5) was substantially damaged by the collapse of an adjacent 110 story skyscraper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #276
278. Define "near" free fall
Edited on Sat May-02-09 12:12 AM by procopia
WTC 7 collapsed at a rate comparable to known controlled demolitions. I wasn't trying to prove WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, I was pointing out that it looked like one, and it does.

For the sake of comparison, none of the buildings that have been destroyed by known controlled demolitions had the same size, design, condition (certainly some were previously damaged), etc, yet all of them share the same collapse characteristics of near free fall, near symmetrical, total collapse.

The WTC 7 looked like it was destroyed by controlled demolition. It didn't look like it was destroyed by fire, flood, tornado, or earthquake, because each of those natural disasters result in their own unique destruction characteristics. Only controlled demolitions have resulted in near free fall, near symmetrical, total collapse, ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #278
279. Wait - why are you asking him to define it?!
It's your claim, yet you're asking him to define the term you used? (setting aside for the moment the fact that it's a misapplied term)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #279
280. How many seconds over free-fall speed is considered "near"?
He denied the collapse was near free fall speed, so apparently there is a specified range of seconds to qualify as "near" free fall? The collapse times for all 3 WTC buildings have been consistently described as "near free-fall" speed. Has even NIST denied near free fall speed? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #280
281. You're arguing about something...
that doesn't exist, at least in this context. Please learn the difference between "speed" and "acceleration".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #281
282. WTC 7 collapse looked exactly like controlled demolition
regardless of the terminology used to describe it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 02:19 AM
Response to Reply #282
283. no, it didn't and...
Edited on Sat May-02-09 02:22 AM by SDuderstadt
i've already pointed out why, but you refuse to listen. try to honestly time the collapse...start the clock when the penthouse actually collapses ahead of the rest of the building...and find bideo that affords an unobstructed view of the lower 30 stories and it's apparent that the collapse came nowhere near ''free-fall speed'' yet the ''truth movement'' keeps offering this tired myth up as if it's fresh evidence of a smoking gun instead of the cap pistol it actually is. more importantly, why doesn't it sound like a controlled demolition? where are the series of deafening explosions that accompany an actua controlled demolition?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #283
286. Yes, it did...exactly
You pointed out why, in your opinion, it didn't, and I pointed out why you were wrong.

Whether WTC collapsed at near free fall or not, when compared to other known controlled demolitions, the rate of collapse is about the same.

The delay after the penthouse collapse is consistent with delays and pauses in known controlled demolitions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #286
288. Except that's not the only characteristic one looks for. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #282
289. It's not about terminology - it's about a fundamental misunderstanding.
If you don't have at least a basic grasp of the physics, how do you expect to describe or analyze such an event properly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #289
291. The WTC 7 collapse looked exactly like controlled demolition.
Edited on Sat May-02-09 11:30 AM by procopia
One doesn't need a physics background to describe the collapses, that's a ridiculous assertion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #291
292. "NIST admitted 2.5 seconds of free fall in WTC 7"
So what? We're talking about the entire collapse, not a portion of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #292
295. So what? SO WHAT?
Don't pretend that 2.5 seconds of free fall isn't significant. And also, please stop trying to obfuscate my point, which is this: The WTC 7 collapse looked just like controlled demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #295
300. Why would it be significant?
Please explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #295
301. The WTC also looked like a souffle collapsing.
Shall we start looking askance at pastry chefs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #291
293. "One doesn't need a physics background to describe the collapses"
But using physics is going to give you a better picture of what is happening. Physics is a way of thinking clearly and precisely and in a quantifiable way about what's going on in that building.

Don't you agree with that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #293
294. The WTC 7 collapse looks just like controlled demolition
Compare it with videos of known controlled demolitons and they have identical characteristics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #294
297. Does it SOUND exactly like controlled demolition?
Why not?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #294
299. No, they don't. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #291
298. No, it's a perfectly sensible assertion.
Physics illiterates like yourself don't have the language or the understanding to describe or analyze the collapses. This tangent is an excellent example. Anybody who makes the colossally stupid assertion that the building collapsed at "near free fall speed" should understand that their opinions and their posts are the objects of ridicule, rather than serious contemplation. If you want to argue coherently and productively about a subject, learn a little about it first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #279
285. As per here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #275
277. "Near free fall speed"? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #263
311. If it had looked just like CD
flashes and dust from the charges would have been visible and audible at the base of WTC 7.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #260
262. Jowenko had already come to the conclusion that Silverstein "pulled" the building
before seeing the video of it falling. His remarks before and after seeing the video demonstrate this completely.

Jowenko's statement was an inside job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #262
265. How can you say that
when it is obvious in the video, Jowenko had no idea the building collapse he was shown was WTC 7. He was very surprised to learn that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #265
267. No, he was surprised to learn it was on the same day....
you're assuming he even knew what building he was looking at prior to being shown the video. If the people manipulating him told him about Silverstein's misinterpreted "pull" comment, that's called "anchoring" and it certainly would have colored Jowenko's perception of the event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #267
273. Surprised to learn it was the same day...but...anchored?
Huh? How familiar could he have been with WTC 7 if he didn't even realize it collapsed on 9/11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #273
274. Because the people showing him the video....
told him. Many people didn't know about WTC 7.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #265
268. Because of the words he used after seeing the video.
Edited on Fri May-01-09 02:22 PM by Bolo Boffin
And he is specifically told that the building collapse he's watching is going to be Building #7. Your assertion to the contrary is inaccurate.

ETA: The video where Jowenko sees the collapse is right here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

As you can see, he is clearly told that he's about to watch WTC 7.

Furthermore, at 3:30 on, Danny reveals he's already seen material about 7's collapse online.

In the next part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

It picks up immediately after the first part ends. At 0:42, Jowenko gives the first hint that he's familiar with the Silverstein argument, but it isn't conclusive there.

At 1:10, Jowenko really gets into it. It's clear that he's talking about the Silverstein argument, unprompted by the interviewer. Nowhere between seeing 7 collapse and this point does the interviewer ever bring up the Silverstein demolition argument. Therefore Jowenko got it from him before the interviewer showed him the collapse, or he got it on his own from the Internet.

EATA: I'm sorry to keep editing this, but it's been a long while since I dealt with this. Jowenko makes an incontrovertible statement at 2:08 in the second video:

No, this is a hired — The man said it himself, you hear him say "pull it down," away with it.


Jowenko says "pull it down" in English. There's no mistaking this. Again, the interviewer never prompts him on camera with this information. Jowenko's understanding of this event is colored by his interpretation of what Silverstein is saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #256
270. WTC 7 looked like a CD because all you can see is the top of the building
Edited on Fri May-01-09 03:01 PM by William Seger
... and all you can really tell by its fall is that the bottom isn't holding it up anymore. I used to say that there wasn't any way to tell the difference between a CD and the kind of progressive collapse supposed by NIST by just looking at the videos, because all you can SEE is gravity at work. However, I now believe that David Chandler's analysis is actually pretty good evidence for a progressive collapse, and it makes a CD MUCH less plausible. That's because his analysis shows that the collapse started slowly for the first 1.5 seconds, and then it shows 2.5 seconds of free-fall, equivalent to about 8 stories. The 1.5 second slow start is hard to explain as a CD, since blowing out the columns would have caused an immediate free-fall, not 1.5 seconds later. The 2.5 seconds of free-fall is likewise hard to explain as a CD unless the columns were blown out on 8 stories, which would be completely unnecessary in the first place, but especially unnecessary AFTER the collapse is already underway, caused by "something else," and extremely implausible since using enough explosives to blow out 8 stories would have been loud enough to be heard in New Jersey, easily, but there are no such sounds on any of the videos. The NIST FEA simulation, on the other hand, shows a progressive horizontal failure involving 7 or 8 floors, and with horizontal restraint removed from that many floors at once, those columns could have quickly buckled and then completely broken, leaving virtually nothing to slow the fall.

The main difference between the Balzac-Vitry building and the WTC 1 & 2 towers is that in the BV building, all the supports were pulled out simultaneously so it fell completely straight down, whereas the tilting tops of the WTC towers unambiguously proves that there was a progressive horizontal failure and then it fell straight down. In both cases, gravity did the rest of the damage -- not a single explosive required -- and you're just kidding yourself to say there isn't any similarity. But kidding yourself seems to be something you're good at.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #270
271. WTC 7, I assume you mean
By the way, I also assume that when you refer to "the towers," you mean (as I would mean) WTC 1 and 2 -- which presumably was not procopia's impression in writing #256.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #271
272. Thanks, edited for clarity (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 05:17 AM
Response to Reply #141
159. charitably, I'll just say, pwned
Now that we're all clear about who isn't willing to admit an obvious mistake -- and in fact insists on blaming it upon the person who was misquoted -- I guess we're done. Good show!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #159
167. Of course you will
However, I clearly admitted I was confused, and I certainly didn't blame it on you. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #167
169. No, instead you tried to turn it into an insult.
Quite pathetic, really. Much like your defense of Jones' paper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #169
174. Why do you continue with these distractions?
They only prove my point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #174
180. This, coming from the poster...
who could have prevented a whole tangent if she'd only gone back and looked at the posts she was trying to quote. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #180
191. You're right.
I should have properly identified you, AZCat, as the poster who made the broad sweeping generalization which was proven to be incorrect. My apologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #191
197. No, it wasn't proven to be incorrect.
It still stands, as does your failure to recognize the significant flaws in Jones' paper. I don't expect this to change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #197
221. Blatant generalizations are almost always wrong
Obviously, not all of "those...who have read the it" find significant flaws in it. It is an absurd claim and diminishes your credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #221
226. It is not as absurd as claiming there aren't significant flaws.
Have you even read the paper?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #226
306. I've read a fair amount from 2 of Jones' peer reviewed papers..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #86
110. Pardon me if I don't trust Jones.
Considering that he just tried to present that thing as a peer-reviewed scientific paper in a reputable journal, I'm not inclined to believe any more of his claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. I'm not convinced
until your side publishes a peer-reviewed rebuttal in any scientific journal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. You have the right to establish whatever criteria you wish.
I think it's foolish, but go right ahead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #112
116. Of course you do
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #64
109. They may be credentialed...
but if that was their conclusion then they certainly aren't qualified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #109
119. According to whom?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #119
120. Ultimately all decisions like this...
are left to the individual. I have a set of criteria, just like you do. They probably are not the same. This may be why we rely on different sources for our information and analysis. I am confident in my own abilities to digest technical literature, while you seem to need to rely on others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #120
125. I'm fully aware
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 04:11 PM by procopia
of the (unreliable) sources you rely on. NIST, for example, which did not even test for explosives in the face of overwhelming evidence of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #125
126. Are you referring to the Equitable Life Insurance building?
Yeah, I was wrong about that. This, I'm not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
procopia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. Thanks for that admission
after all these months. This, you don't know about, as much as you think you do. No one knows what happened on 9/11, except the perpetrators and those complicit, and anyone who says they know is lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:23 PM
Response to Reply #127
128. I thought I admitted it back then.
If I didn't, I'm sorry.

I can understand your problem. You have no idea who I am, nor do you have any idea what kind of education or experience I have. My opinion is pretty worthless to you. I, on the other hand, have a pretty good idea what I do and don't know.

While I understand your confusion over the events of September 11th, 2001, the quality of the Jones paper does not rest on those events - it can be assessed independently by asking a few basic questions: did the authors identify control substances; did the authors adequately explore alternatives to their hypothesis; did the authors eliminate as best as possible any externalities that might affect their results? The answer to all three of these questions is "no". Does this mean their conclusions are incorrect? Of course not! It just means that this paper is useless in determining the validity of those conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 06:09 AM
Response to Reply #16
24. Why should anyone have to answer this question?
Who used this phrase? It was not used in the paper in question.

Someone here has wrongly suggested the opposite of "active" in this context would be "inactive."

In this context the opposite of "active" would be "inert."

From Wikipedia:
"In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) is that their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not easily able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert substances, a lot of energy is required before they can combine with other elements to form compounds. High temperatures and pressure are usually necessary, sometimes requiring the presence of a catalyst.
...
"In the area of weapons, an inert munition is one in which all energetic material such as primer, fuse, and explosive or incendiary fill have been removed or rendered harmless. Inert munitions are used in military training and are collected in museums and by private individuals."

The opposite of "reacted" would be "unreacted."

Certainly Jim Hoffman had the right idea when he tried "to make it simple."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
29. The title of the paper in question is
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

The question remains what is "Active Thermitic Materials"? No one has provided an answer. I know what Therimtic Materials are, There are dozens
see here. http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/658208-2dvIfX/webviewable/658208.pdf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. You really should contact the authors of the paper
Their contact information is right on the first page of the document.

Then you could let us all know what their response is to your question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. This nanothermite goes to 11. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #34
41. Sounds like the title of a truther youtube video
Edited on Sat Apr-25-09 10:49 AM by LARED
add some head banging music and willbill will post it as gospel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. What is inert thermite? Is there any such thing?
Sounds like a oxymoron to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. No there is no such thing. Why would you even ask? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #37
47. I ask because "Active" Thermite is just thermite.
And LARED's point about the use of language to hype this "thermitic material" becomes valid. "Active" thermite is being used to distinguish it from "inactive" or "inert" thermite, but there is no such thing. So why would someone try to make a distinction between real and imaginary forms of thermite?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. "active, unreacted thermitic material"
Please quote the paper where it says "active thermite."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #52
56. But thermitic material is indeed thermite, correct?
We'd already established that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tetedur Donating Member (321 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #56
67. Is all thermitic material thermite? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
26. Self delete. n/t
Edited on Sat Apr-25-09 06:45 AM by eomer
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
44. Why did the NIST refuse to do testing for explosives?
now we know why.

their official report is a work of science fiction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Why would they do that?
Do you think testing for explosives is part of the NIST's role in the investigations?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. The NIST tested for explosives in the 1993 WTC attacks
apparently, it is their 'role.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. They did? I'd like to see that.
Please provide a link so I can read up on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. Are you suggesting that explosives were not the cause
Edited on Sat Apr-25-09 11:38 AM by rollingrock
of the WTC attacks in 1993?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. Please go reread my post.
I'll give you a moment to edit after you realize your mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. The official reason given for the 1993 attack
was a car bombing. how did they know that without doing testing for explosives?

are they psychic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #55
57. I think you're missing my point.
You seem to think that the NIST was involved in the investigation of the 1993 attack, and that their responsibility in the investigation included testing for explosives. I don't think this is true. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
53. Any competent investigation
would have considered and tested for the use of explosives, A) given the well-known history of its use in attack on the WTC in 1993 That is more than enough reason to do proper testing for explosives, but also because the widespread reports of explosions taking place in the buildings.

But then, I don't expect competent work from anyone working under the Bush administration.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. Why would the NIST be the agency responsible? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #54
58. The NIST were placed in charge of investigating
the cause of the collapses. It was their job, genius.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Why would they test for explosives...
when explosives had already been ruled out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. What an absurd question
how can they rule it out, without testing?

Oh, that's right, they're psychics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Apparently you haven't read the relevant sections of the reports.
Fortunately, NIST covered this question early on in one of their FAQs:

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Nothing but wild, baseless speculation

NIST can speculate all they want but that isn't proof of anything without being based on proper testing which they refused to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. their observations are perfectly valid, rr...
we have video of each tower collapsing, so it is easy to see where the collapses initiated. thus, it's easy to calculate the thermite needed to initiate such collapses and demonstrate its improbability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Unless you have x-ray vision
the collapse videos aren't proof of anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. you've got to be kidding...right?
are you honestly claiming that the videos don't establish that the collapses initiated at the impact zone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. We're talking about what caused the collapse
not where it started.

Why are you trying to change the subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. because establishing where it started would be necessary...
to understanding what caused it. i can't believe i have to explain this to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. try this, maybe
If you honestly think that NIST's calculation of the necessary amount of thermite is "wild, baseless speculation," would you care to substitute your own calculation? Or do you think that it is somehow logically impossible to make such a calculation, and all we can do is look at the physical evidence, or perhaps whine that we can't look at the physical evidence? Or what?

In other words, perhaps you could address the substance of the subthread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #72
73. First of all
NIST assumes in its FAQ that only one kind of explosive or one kind of thermite exists in the world, conventional thermite. Which is a false assumption right off the bat. Other variations include thermate, superthermite, nanothermite, the latter being the type that was discovered in the WTC dust as mentioned in the OP.

Their assumptions may have been true back in World War I, but don't hold true in the modern world, as there have been numerous advancements in explosives and thermite technology. Conventional thermite was invented in Germany before World War I, so the NIST report is about a hundred years out of date.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. All thermite works on the same chemical principals (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #75
77. All explosives do not work on the same chemical principles
The site should have been tested for any kind of explosive, not just thermite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. the thermite thing..
From what I understand, thermite is an incendiary and nanothermite/superthermite and thermate (which I believe is a specific type of nanothermite/superthermite) are explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. Notice the weasel language
NIST statement: 'This makes it (thermite) an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.'

Instead of thermite you can substitute the word 'firecrackers' or 'pancake batter' in that statement and it would still be true. It does not rule out the use of explosives since conventional thermite isn't an explosive, which makes it chemically different from explosive super- or nanothermites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #80
99. Definitely...
Robert Moore explains the misleading statements that NIST makes on this matter in his peer reviewed paper,
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf">Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #99
108. I read that
Excellent piece of work. It shows how NIST makes a multitude of false assumptions about thermite. In addition, it uses thermite as a straw man which isn't even an explosive as you pointed out. Start with a conclusion, work your way back and making up the facts to fit accordingly. Heckuva job, NIST!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #108
139. The sad thing is..
...that it's such a lame excuse for an real investigation.. but so few people understand this that they've gotten away with it up until now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #77
312. thermite is not an explosive (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. thermite and thermate are fairly different..
The first is an incendiary, the second is an explosive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #78
87. No - both are incendiaries
Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of exceedingly high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades.

The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminum and a metal oxide. In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect, create flame in burning, and significantly reduce the ignition temperature. Various mixtures of these compounds can be called thermate, but, to avoid confusion with Thermate-TH3, one can refer to them as thermite variants or analogs. The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN). As both thermite and thermate are notoriously difficult to ignite, initiating the reaction normally requires trained human supervision and sometimes persistent effort


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #87
98. You can't always trust wiki...
Steven Jones and others have done such a good job in bringing the scientific aspects of the 9/11 movement to light that there's now an article in "The Raw Story" that came out on April 9:
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scientists_find_active_superthermite_in_WTC_0404.html">Study claims 'highly engineered explosive' found in WTC rubble
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 08:05 AM
Response to Reply #98
100. I trust it more than Jones
"explosive" thermite is pure speculation until someone actually proves it exists or is more that just a laboratory curiosity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #100
117. A pyrotechnic is something that goes boom
Superthermites

...Metastable intermolecular composites (MICs), also called super-thermites or superthermites, are pyrotechnic compositions containing an oxidizer and a reducing agent which undergoes a very powerful exothermic reaction when heated to a critical temperature. They are variants of thermite compositions. MICs are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use...

...Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved.

...MICs can be also added to high explosives to modify their properties. <5> Aluminium is typically added to explosives to increase their energy yield. Addition of small amount of MIC to aluminium powder increases overall combustion rate, acting as a burn rate modifier...

...Like conventional thermite, super thermite usage is hazardous due to the extremely high temperatures produced and the extreme difficulty in smothering a reaction once initiated. Additionally, with nanothermites, composition and morphology are important variables for safety. For example, the variation of layer thickness in energetic nanolaminates can allow control of the reactivity of it.<9> The thermite reaction releases dangerous ultra-violet (UV) light requiring that the reaction not be viewed directly, or that special eye protection (for example, a welder's mask) be worn.

more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-thermites


...The last part probably explains the cause for the widely reported molten metal that burned for weeks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #117
131. That last sentence makes no sense
the molten metal was aluminum - which has a melting point well below the temperatures observed in the rubble fire.

Since there were no observed temperatures hot enough to melt steel - where is the thermal evidence of thermate burning in the pile for weeks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #131
133. the 'it was molten aluminum' hypothesis has been debunked by Jones...
He did this way almost 2 years ago, back in May 2007, in his peer review paper titled http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf">Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method, which he published in the Journal of 9/11 studies.

Here is his refutation of the molten aluminum hypothesis:
********************************************************************
To test the second hypothesis , we performed experiments with molten aluminum. Simple metals incandesce when you heat them up, and orange hot represents a temperature of about 1000C. Aluminum alloy melts at roughly 600 C. We heated the steel pan and saw the pan glow yellow-orange. However, the melted aluminum contains many free electrons and will therefore reflect more light. Aluminum also has a low emissivity, meaning that the aluminum is glowing/incandescing but only very faintly. In daylight conditions, the liquid appears silvery due to the high reflectivity particularly when poured out. The glowing liquid flowing from the South Tower could not be aluminum because it does not appear silvery -- rather, it has an "orange glow" (in NIST's words and by observation also).

Also, aluminum is very difficult to ignite. We found that out by directing an oxyacetylene torch onto molten aluminum - and it oxidized but did not ignite with an "unusual flame" - no flame from the aluminum was seen at all.

NIST in a fact sheet in August 2006 stated:
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475C and 640C (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1000C) in the vicinity of the fires.

"Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery."

"However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."33


I read the word "can" in the NIST report and as a scientist wanted to perform experiments. Why didn't NIST do the experiments before making that statement (or did they)? Did they even try to mix aluminum with organics and pour the mixture out (like the flowing material at the South Tower) to show that it not only "can" but "will" emit an "orange glow"? We decided to perform the experiment ourselves.

The very next day after reading the NIST fact sheet in August 2006, a colleague and I performed the experiments with aluminum mixed with organic materials, mostly wood chips. The flow was silvery and simply did not resemble the orange liquid which poured from the south tower. The organics burned quickly when added to the molten aluminum. The ash floated on top of the aluminum liquid.

A young physics professor told me that he couldn't believe NIST would not have done the experiment to see if this worked - that one "can" get an "orange glow" by adding organic ash to aluminum. So we did another set of experiments and he joined the effort. This time we used wood ash from my wood-burning stove, pieces of carpet, plastic chips, later glass, and melted it all together with molten aluminum. The young physicist doggedly stirred and stirred the mix with a long-bladed screwdriver. He tried to mix the organics in with the molten aluminum, but they would not mix in! It's like oil and water, the organics tend to float and separate from the molten aluminum. And then in the end we poured the concoction out and the flow still looked silvery. He agreed with that because he saw it. Silvery, not orange. SO much for the NIST Fact Sheet(30) which states that "the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow."

If NIST can tell us how to do this trick, we will do the experiment again to test their suggestion. Meanwhile, we have observed that the organics float to the surface but do not make a uniform orange glow. Conclusion: poured out molten aluminum looks silvery (even if heated to the point where iron glows yellow/orange) and does not give the orange glow seen at the South Tower in the flowing material (even when mixed with organic materials).
********************************************************************
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #133
137. You are confused
I am talking about the aluminum that melted in the rubble pile after the collapse(the "pools of molten metal" we keep hearing about), not the shower of molten metal that was observed before the collapse.

But since you bought up the subject, that shower proceeded the collapse by a not insignificant period time. Surely you are not saying that it was caused by the thermate charges are you? Why the time delay and why only one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:44 AM
Response to Reply #137
186. The flowing molten aluminum may have been caused by thermite...
Which burns slower. The idea is that they wanted one floor to collapse without the explosions because to have explosions straight off the bat would probably look a bit too suspicious; so the first floor was done slowly, then the rest were just popped. One engineer mentioned that while only one side had molten metal flowing out, the other 3 sides had the tell tale characteristic of a thermite burn; that is, white clouds, the color of aluminum oxide smoke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #186
204. Or caused by the fires in the tower. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #133
217. "we performed experiments with molten aluminum"
Didn't we just recently discuss the metalurgist who said it could have been aluminum oxide and dross, Scott? Yes, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x241323#242042">I believe we did. So, why are you still flogging this, if you still have no response to that argument? Because you figure you can still get some "truther" mileage out of it if nobody challenges it this time? Or the next?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #131
142. How do you know it is aluminum?
did the NIST do testing on this molten material?

don't make any claims that you cannot prove.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #142
146. Similarly, how do you know it is steel?
Especially if no one tested it. You just created a trap for yourself and fell right into it. Congratulations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #146
230. I never t said it was steel
I said it was molten metal, which is a fact.

hack was the one who claimed it to be aluminum, of which there is no proof.

Because once again the NIST failed to its job.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #142
147. We have evidence of temperatures in the pile
that were hot enough to melt aluminum. There is absolutely no evidence of temperatures hot enough to keep molten steel molten for weeks. You have to go where the logic takes you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #142
149. And you can prove it was steel? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #149
187. Here you go...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #187
190. That's anecdotal evidence.
Do you have any actual tests done on this molten material to know it was steel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #149
231. Again, where did I say it was molten steel??
I said it was molten metal, which is a fact. Jeez, learn to read.

you were the one who claimed it was molten aluminum, so the burden of proof is on YOU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #100
138. The fact that you give a one or the other answer...
...suggests that you're not entirely certain that thermite can't be explosive. I admit that finding the evidence that it can be when it is in the nano form can indeed be elusive. I have found it in the past, but it involved referring to more then one article, because no one article gave enough information to determine this.

However, I did find another gem in http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html">Jim Hoffman's recent Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust article:

Reaction Rate

The reaction rate of a thermitic material determines how quickly the metal fuel and oxidizer react, and therefore how quickly the energy is released. Whereas the energy density of an explosive is determined by its chemistry, its power density is determined by its reaction rate, which, in the case of a thermitic material, is determined by its physical characteristics. Specifically, the reaction rate increases with the fineness with which the metal and oxide powders are milled, and the uniformity with which they are mixed.

Because the reactants of thermite must be milled very finely to attain explosive reaction rates, such thermites are often referred to as nano-thermites. Such nano- or "super-thermites" typically have particle diameters on the order of a few hundred nanometers. The reaction rate in turn determines the destructive character of the material. Whereas a cup of conventional thermite will melt a hole clear through a car's engine block, the same quantity of nano-thermite will blow the car apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #138
140. But it still does not explain why you need thermate in the first place
CD with high explosives is a known science. CD with nano-thermate has never been done before - we don't even know if it is possible.

CTrs talk about coincidences in the OCT yet expect us to believe that the largest CD ever attempted was pulled off perfectly (three time) with never used before techniques and explosives. On top of which we have layers of complexity beyond what a typical commercial CD would have. Do you understand why this thermate theory makes absolutely no sense? But then, you can't answer that question, can you? Seven years down the road the the "truth" community still can't put together a detail and coherent scenario that explains what happened on 911.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #140
171. thermate is apparently quieter, for one..
...it doesn't explode the way normal explosives do; I think if it had been taken down via conventional explosives, with the same tell tale sounds, it would have been too obvious. Nevertheless, it's still fairly obvious, for people who take the time to do the research, that the only way those buildings could have come down at that speed was through controlled demolition. What layers of complexity are you referring to? Anyway, I will leave you with what Sherlock Holmes said:
"when you remove the impossible, the improbable is the answer."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #171
175. "it doesn't explode the way normal explosives do"
Maybe it explodes like a little burrito?

Patented Fourth-Generation Nano-Thermite, with New and Improved Hush-A-Boom Technology! For all your evil needs.

Dr. Evil says, "I didn't go to four years of Evil Medical College to use anything but Nano-Thermite when trying to take over the world. Muhahahahaha. MUhahahahahha. MUHAHAHAHhahahaha. MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! MUHHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! MUHAHAHAHAHAA!!! MUHAHAHAHAHA! MUHAHAHAHAhaha! MUHAhahahahaa! Muhahaha. Hah. Mm."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #175
178. You may want to see some of the experiments Steven Jones has done..
Where he gets nano thermite to explode. Quite interesting.. also relatively quiet for an explosion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #178
189. Jones had actual samples of nano-thermite? From what source did he obtain them?
Or are you begging the question here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #189
200. Hey Dutch Boy, Where Are Your Commonly Occuring Exploding Paint Chips...
that put the lie to Jones et al's conclusions and what's their source? Got any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #200
218. The question is, does Jones have any
Gee, somehow, his "peer reviewed" paper failed to actually prove that his paint chips would even burn like thermite, much less explode like nanothermite. Tell me: If you think they're explosive, do you think the paper's failure to prove it is because the authors are crappy scientists who failed to do the necessary experiments?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #218
224. See Post #150. David L. Griscom Is An Obvious Nutter (Not!)...
Edited on Tue Apr-28-09 09:27 AM by Fainter
who wouldn't know the difference between his ass and a hole in the ground. If I recall correctly you seem to be making a largely semantic argument. The interesting question is not whether Jones' magic dust burns and explodes precisely like some previously known form of nano-thermite, the interesting question is whether it burns and explodes in unexpected ways and whether it is nano-engineered and for what purpose. You say it does not burn and explode in an interesting way which for you apparently means exactly like a previously known form of thermite. You totally (correct me if I am wrong) duck the question of nano-engineering. Who's right here about the sufficiency of Jones' work, Griscom or Seger? I'm a layman, I can't tell. You are obviously no dummy but Griscom seems to have been some kind of science all-star. Tell you what, instead of whining about the shoddiness of Jones' science in some internet dungeon, why don't you combat his quasi-science with some real science of your own in whatever you consider to be a proper scientific journal.

I am persuaded Jones et al would have saved themselves some grief if they had tested some paint samples, but how many would Jones have to test to satisfy his detractors? At what point does due diligence become the burden of proving a negative? Why can't these tests still be done, better yet why aren't you doing them if they're so easy or dispositive?

The surest way to debunk Jones' work is to find a commercially available NANO-ENGINEERED paint sample that exhibits the properties Jones' describes. I'm betting you won't find this exotica in or out of the towers but I am prepared to be surprised.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #224
228. No, it's not a semantic argument
As I've said elsewhere, even if you take the data in the paper at face value, it still doesn't support the conclusions drawn. After providing only indirect evidence that there is any elemental aluminum (rather than aluminum oxide, which is already reacted) and only indirect evidence of any thermitic redox reaction at all (an uncounted number of "mostly iron" spheruless, with no real proof that they formed when they burned the stuff), and with no analysis whatsoever about what percentage of the material might have been involved in any thermitic reaction, the paper "concludes" that it's a "pyrotechnic." It then goes on to label it as "nanothermite" based on particle size (after disingenuously implying that small particles require highly specialized engineering and manufacturing techniques), and then, under the back-to-back assumptions that it's thermite and that nanothermite is explosive -- and after blurring the distinction between energy density and release rate -- the paper "concludes" that it has found a "highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material." No specialized knowledge of chemistry is required to see what's wrong with that argument. I don't claim to know what the stuff is, but I can confidently claim that neither does Jones: He didn't do the necessary work to determine what it is, and he didn't do the necessary work to rule out alternative explanations.

Nobody is required to "debunk" Jones' conclusions; if Jones wants to be a scientist, it's his job to either substantiate his conclusions or live with being ridiculed and/or ignored. He has published a paper that clearly does not prove anything.

There's no point in trying to find any "similar" paint, or to try to rule out paint by testing every type you can find, when there's a direct way: Get some of the actual WTC paint and test it. One might think that Jones would be anxious to do that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #171
176. ''the only way the buildings could have come down at that speed...
is controlled demolition''. please prove that. on top of that, what speed do you think they came down at and how did you determine that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #176
179. All the evidence has already been mentioned...
...and by professionals, no less. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is a good example. I'll start off with their 10 points regarding WTC 7:

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

The buildings came down in a matter of seconds; the exact number of seconds is irrelevant; no steel framed building has ever come down due to fire; the windsor tower, which was only steel reinforced, not steel framed, only suffered a partial collapse, and pieces collapsed over a series of a few hours, not seconds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #179
188. And since you've already posted that here and are cutting and pasting it again...
I once again cut and paste my "Top 10 Boneheaded Mistakes of AE911Truth."

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes

# The Admission of This Subject Being Outside Their Expertise
# The Use of Discredited Sources
# The Ever-Changing Features List
# Selective Use of Authorities
# Publishing Pictures of The Pancakes
# Misunderstanding The ARA Contract
# "Freefall" or "Near Freefall"
# Illegitimate Comparison of Flame-Engulfed Buildings
# Chandler Video Helps Prove NIST WTC 7 Model Valid
# Dismissal of the Piledriver


And for a bonus cut-and-paste, my explanation of why AE911Truth continues to make boneheaded mistakes like the ones I've listed:

As I said, until Gage and his followers stop making one major mistake, they will continue making the above mistakes again and again. They will be driven to do it because this one major mistake demands it.

And that is making the assumption that by attacking the common understanding of the 9/11 attacks, they will be able to undermine the rationale for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Notice that I said "common understanding" and not "official story." There is no single source controllable by any group of people on Earth from where we get our knowledge of what happened on 9/11. The nature of all these events were much too public, and even the event most sheltered from the public eye (the crash of United 93) was soon understood by the release of phone calls to loved ones, the information from the plane's FDR and CVR, and the combined witness of the hundreds of people who helped clean up that terrible site.

It is a fool's errand to attack these combined witnesses. Yet the 9/11 Truth Movement does so in its misguided attempt to resist the current Middle Eastern wars. Gage and his organization does their part, and their motivation is fairly dripping from their every presentation. Since they believe these buildings to have been controlled demolitions, and since al-Qaeda could never have set those charges, the implication of the current administration's culpability is clear. So they will continue to twist evidence, misunderstand statements, cherrypick their data, pretend a common cause with every other opponent of their chosen targets, and move the goalposts whenever it suits them and with barely any acknowledgment of having done so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 03:35 PM
Response to Reply #171
203. So what pulverized the concrete and disintegrated the top
if not high explosives? Or are you saying that it was simply the KE of the building that did that?

We don't even know if thermate works for CD at all - it is a huge leap to think that it would work on the WTC. So little is know about thermate and CD that the truth community can't even venture a guess as to how much thermate was needed - without such calculations how do you know that it was even possible? We keep hearing about all these engineers that support 911 truth - why aren't they doing basic experimentation and calculation to answer such questions?

It is obvious only to truthers - a tiny minority on the internet. And what do you say to your fellow truthers that say it is "obvious" that mini-nukes, space beams and holographs were involved? They can't all be right, now can they?

The best example of increased complexity is the the added explosives needed to pulverize the concrete. If it was a commercial Cd, it would have taken 47 linear shaped charges on the core columns to bring down each tower. Yet the 911 plotters added tons of explosives simply to blow up the concrete floors - why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #140
199. A Little Fire Strawman?...
I think for their nefarious black op they would have SECRETLY tested the nano-thermite beforehand to be sure it behaved predictably, usefully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #138
143. Every time hack is proven wrong
he comes up with, or makes up something else that's even more unreasonable,
if not totally ridiculous, than the last thing he said.

its like playing whack-a-mole with some of these people. lol.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #138
144. Every time I hear the term "nano-thermite"
I think this:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #144
170. I'm sure people who thought the world was flat...
...thought the same. You may want to investigate a little further than what you already know (which is apparently not much) in this subject...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #170
173. But did the "nano-thermite" have laser beams attached to their heads?
Edited on Mon Apr-27-09 08:45 AM by Bolo Boffin
Maybe then I could get on board this crazy train.

Al Gore recently said, and I quote:

There are people who still believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.


Much better example here. Much more pertinent to the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #173
177. Focus on the subject at hand, please...
Or perhaps I should return the favour and have your post deleted for being "off topic". For now, it would be good if you could simply admit that thermitic material was discovered in the 9/11 dust. After that, you could read an article such as Robert Moore's http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf">Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1, to further understand how nano thermite could have been used to demolish the WTC buildings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #177
183. Why would we "admit" something that hasn't been proven true? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #183
302. How much of the evidence have you seen? -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #78
104. Neither are technically explosive
Thermate just burns more rapidly than thermite. The main chemical reaction in thermate is the same as in thermite: an aluminothermic reaction between powdered aluminum and a metal oxide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #104
136. Where you getting your information from?
Jim Hoffman is a fairly well known 9/11 researcher, who for quite some time has had a site called 9/11 Research, which even some debunkers have used in the past, due to its strong focus on evidence. Earlier this month, Hoffman published an article titled http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html#thermite_demolition">Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust. In it, using an FAQ approach, he gets into how Thermite could have demolished the Towers. He considers it obvious that thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives". I once did find literature that demonstrated this, but I can't presently do so. So, while it may be obvious if you have the literature on hand, the difficulty may be in obtaining it. Nevertheless, I think his statements in the aforementioned article are certainly falsifiable; that is, if he's mistaken, this can be shown. I invite anyone to try to do this...

******************
How Could Thermite, an Incendiary, Demolish the Towers, When Buildings Are Normally Demolished Using High-Explosive Cutter Charges?

As is obvious from a review of the literature on energetic materials, thermite-based pyrotechnics can be engineered to have explosive power similar to conventional high-explosives while providing greater energy density and much greater stability. Thus, aluminothermic cutter charges similar to the shaped charges used in commercial demolitions are entirely feasible. However, a variety of forms of thermite might be used to demolish a steel-framed skyscraper in a way that uses no cutter charges at all, as in this Hypothetical Blasting Scenario, which posits three types of aluminothermic pyrotechnics: a thermate incendiary coating sprayed onto steelwork, nano-thermite kicker charges placed near steelwork, and thin-film nano-composite high-explosives distributed throughout the building. The strategically applied incendiary coatings, ignited several minutes before the building's take-down, weaken the structure; but obvious failures start only when the kicker charges break key supports, and the thin-film high-explosives begin pulverizing the building from the initial failure zone outward.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #136
240. Jim Hoffman may be a fantasic researcher
but his analyis of uses of explosives is baffling to say the least and smacks of inventing capabilities to support a pet theory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #73
84. well, no
It obviously is not the case that NIST assumes that only one kind of explosive or one kind of thermite exists in the world. Regardless, the question remains: can you pick your kind of thermite and come up with your own calculation, or something that looks like an attempt at scientific reasoning? Since you believe that nanothermite was found in the WTC dust, how much of that would be required to do whatever you think was done?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #72
76. Here's what we should try.
First we should dismiss the nonsensical statement in the NIST faq:

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm


Apparently they've calculated how much thermite would be required to bring down a tower that wasn't hit by a plane and subsequently burning. That's a nice but useless piece of information since we don't have any cases of that.

The real question is how much thermite would be required in addition to the weakening from the plane hit and the fire in order to bring down a tower. According to NIST that amount is zero.

What about the theory that thermite was used to help bring down the towers, used in conjunction with the other weakening factors? Isn't that the relevant question?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #76
81. Huh?
NIST:

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite... or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.

eomer:

Apparently they've calculated how much thermite would be required to bring down a tower that wasn't hit by a plane and subsequently burning.

You seem to have misunderstood the NIST.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #81
83. well, I'm not sure I understand the NIST here either
I think eomer and I both reason that NIST can't be saying that a large quantity of thermite would have been required to bring down the towers that were damaged by the impact and weakened by fires -- because if that were true, the towers wouldn't have fallen unless a large quantity of thermite (or something) were used.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. Ah I get the point
I think this is what happens when attempting to answer silly questions you frequently get silly answers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #76
82. heck if I know
Thermite seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. I suppose there is no gainsaying the argument that if no thermite was needed to account for the towers' fall, then at least the amount of thermite necessary to bring down the towers must have been available! It seems sort of like a "God of the gaps" argument without the gaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:28 AM
Response to Reply #82
89. Which leaves us where?
The question of whether thermite was involved must be answered by looking to the physical evidence, in my opinion. I'm not convinced that NIST's conclusion is correct that the towers could have fallen just due to the impact and the fires but, even if I were, that would still leave me asking whether they actually did fall without anything more than that.

In other words, I believe there should yet be a forensic investigation into the physical evidence, to whatever extent it is still possible, to look for unreacted thermite, for unreacted super-thermite, for other low or high explosives, and for the residues and other markers that would result from the same.

After all, they do it for old, dead horses don't they?
Phar Lap 'died from arsenic poisoning'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. shrug
One of the problems with "God of the gaps" arguments without the gaps is that there is never any way to rule out God. If some solid experts can propose a useful way of testing something for thermite residues, I certainly wouldn't object, but I don't understand the warrant. If you aren't convinced that the towers could have fallen without explosives, then I'm not convinced that a negative result for residue(s) will alter your opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 06:14 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. If the question were already settled
Edited on Sun Apr-26-09 06:15 AM by eomer
..., if there were no controversy, then why bother.

Clearly there is controversy enough to warrant an investigation. At least as much as the case of a horse dead for 75 years (eta: or the case of 21 horses dead for a week or so).

Regarding confirmation bias, we're all pretty predictable here, on both sides.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #91
95. "there is controversy enough to warrant an investigation"
That is what remains to be demonstrated. Intelligent design theorists presumably sincerely believe that they are participants in a live controversy, but as far as I can tell, they have had no disciplinary impact. (Of course the analogy is imperfect, because how the towers fell is not a central disciplinary concern. The analogy to exit poll fundamentalism is closer.)

If I saw more real controversy, I would be more interested in an investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #95
101. How much more controversy could there be, until an investigation is done?
Do you advocate that the possibility of foul play should never be looked into in arson cases and murder cases in general, as long as there is a theory that, without examining the actual physical evidence, is plausible?

The 21 polo ponies could have died by an innocent cause. Experts established plausible explanations to that effect and yet they still transported the expired ponies to a lab setting, took physical evidence samples, analyzed them, and investigated the possibility of foul play and tried to pin down the actual explanation.

Why would we want to settle on just one of the possible explanations, to the exclusion of all the others, without examining the actual physical evidence? Isn't 911 just as important a case as the death of 21 polo ponies?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #101
106. huh?
How much more controversy could there be? Lots. If many experts harbored grave reservations about the hypothesis that the towers collapsed without demolition, there would be much more pressure for investigation; if you harbored fewer reservations, you would be less emphatic about the need for further investigation of this alternative.

Do you advocate that the possibility of foul play should never be looked into in arson cases and murder cases in general, as long as there is a theory that, without examining the actual physical evidence, is plausible?

That doesn't seem relevant, because NIST did look into the possibility of foul play. Are you suggesting that every arson scene should be tested for thermite, just in case, even if the investigators don't believe they have a reliable test?

The 21 polo ponies could have died by an innocent cause. Experts established plausible explanations to that effect and yet they still transported the expired ponies to a lab setting, took physical evidence samples, analyzed them, and investigated the possibility of foul play and tried to pin down the actual explanation.

Why would we want to settle on just one of the possible explanations, to the exclusion of all the others, without examining the actual physical evidence?

I don't know where to start. What do you mean, experts "established plausible explanations" that the polo ponies "died by an innocent cause"? And are you trying to insinuate that NIST didn't examine physical evidence? Or is it just that NIST didn't test for thermite? Did forensic experts test the horses for thermite?! (If not, why not? Has anyone demonstrated that highly engineered nanothermite couldn't possibly account for the deaths? Why would we want to exclude that possibility?)

You seem convinced that NIST botched the investigation, but I'm not. The evidence available to me indicates that NIST rejected the thermite hypothesis (or family of hypotheses) because, on several grounds, the investigators didn't think it made sense -- not just because they found another plausible hypothesis. Now, they could be wrong. The way to generate more controversy, even without any further physical testing, would be to refine the hypothesis so that it makes more sense (and/or to infirm the prevailing hypothesis). I have no reason to be sure that thermite had nothing to do with the collapses -- but I equally have no reason to think that more attention needs to be devoted to the possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:06 AM
Response to Reply #106
162. Don't agree.
What does it matter whether all the experts in the world think it is possible that the towers could have fallen due to just impact and fires? Almost all cases of murder could have, within the laws of physics, been accidental.

There doesn't need to be controversy to warrant taking physical samples from the crime scene and analyzing them. That should be the minimum level of investigatorial curiosity in a case involving the murder of thousands of people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #162
163. I think you are missing the point
Edited on Mon Apr-27-09 06:20 AM by OnTheOtherHand
I say again: The evidence available to me indicates that NIST rejected the thermite hypothesis (or family of hypotheses) because, on several grounds, the investigators didn't think it made sense -- not just because they found another plausible hypothesis.

And your argument here again fails to provide a more compelling reason to test the metal for thermite than to test the polo ponies for thermite. You need a more discriminating argument.

ETA: But it's a guilty pleasure to discuss this without all the prevailing histrionics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #163
166. Here's my evidence.
Dozens (perhaps hundreds) of eyewitnesses who heard explosions. Including police and other first responders.

And besides, I still don't agree with the premise that there needs to be some evidence before you check for evidence. Otherwise the protocol for investigation of a crime that you are advocating (sorry, maybe this is histrionic) would be:
  1. Government settles on a theory that it likes, that is most beneficial to its own interests
  2. Government finds some egghead engineers (who work for them) willing to say that the theory violates no laws of physics (based on the little to no evidence that has been collected)
  3. government says "case closed", we've got what we want so we're not going to collect and analyze evidence in this case.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scott75 Donating Member (218 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #166
181. This looks especially suspicious if..
High level government officials have a fair amount to gain from a crime. It might lead one to believe that they were a part of it, somehow... especially when they seem so uninterested in doing a proper investigation...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #166
196. I don't agree with that premise, either
We seem to be wedged pretty firmly in talk-past mode.

Tell you what, if my FDNY brother-in-law tells me that there ought to be an investigation into the 9/11 explosions, that would be one good way to get me to pay a lot more attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #196
209. OK, reviewing the subthread to see if I'm not listening carefully enough
and thereby causing talk-past mode.

You've repeated this part; that must be a clue:

I say again: The evidence available to me indicates that NIST rejected the thermite hypothesis (or family of hypotheses) because, on several grounds, the investigators didn't think it made sense -- not just because they found another plausible hypothesis.


So I read over the http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm">NIST faq again to see if I can spot the grounds that you are talking about. The faq points to Q&As 2, 4, 5, 11, and 12 as being the places where they address this question.

This summary (an excerpt from Q&A 2) holds most of their argument:

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.


The "instead" part seems to indicate they felt that if the collapse initiated within the impact/fire zone then it must not have involved planted explosives. But I realized long ago that explosives had to have done their work in the collapse initiation zone in order to cause the collapse (duh!) and that explosives doing any work anywhere else would have been irrelevant -- I buy their conclusion that once the floors in the collapse zone collapsed then the rest was inevitable.

In other words, they seem to be arguing with people who have theories that are false on their face, like the idea that there were and needed to be explosions running all the way down the building that had to be triggered in precise coordination with the progressing collapse in order for the collapse to progress. I guess this is not quite a strawman, is it, since there are people really advocating this view? But, on second thought, isn't it still? (a strawman?) With so many people offering theories, there is no need to make up stupid ones out of straw. There are plenty of stupid ones lying around. So you pick up a couple of stupid ones, refute them, and pretend you're finished. What they left undone was refuting any theories that actually had merit. Like mine, naturally, that explosives were working in the collapse zone (and likely elsewhere, though irrelevantly), and were a contributing factor that added to the effects of impact and fire in leading to the collapse. The reasoning in the faq does nothing (I say) to falsify this theory. It would have looked exactly the way it looked.

Q&As 4, 5, and 11 are NIST refutations of some claims about puffs, seismic events, and molten metal dripping out; let's stipulate that NIST is right on these for the sake of argument but, of course, that just subtracts some evidence for but doesn't constitute evidence against.

Then there's the excerpt from Q&A 12 that we discussed before:

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower.


This argument, as I said earlier, is pure nonsense and does nothing but make me suspicious of their sincerity.

If we take NIST at their word that their reasons for discarding the explosives theory are as stated in the faq, then I would say these reasons are extremely weak and superficial; they refute only the low-hanging fruit of obviously flawed theories and in no way falsify any thoughtful ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #209
211. OK, let's see
I spent a bit of time googling thermite stuff, and my very unscientific impression is that you are much in the minority in hypothesizing that thermite was used -- but only in the collapse initiation zone (which, if I read you correctly, is near where each plane hit). So I am not sure whether NIST can be blamed for not anticipating your variant. Regardless, we can at least consider whether they have any grounds for ruling it out.

("In other words, they seem to be arguing with people who have theories that are false on their face...." Well, yeah, I think there's a lot of that, and it probably does have the effect of making everybody stupider.)

I really have to think about this some more. My basic problem is that your hypothesis doesn't seem to do any explanatory work. I guess you say that it explains the eyewitness reports of explosions, but I'm not convinced that nanothermite in the collision zones fits neatly with what was to be explained. Is there someone who has laid out something like the scenario you have in mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #211
215. Here's another one.
It's also easily possible that explosives were used but ended up having little or no connection with the actual collapse. Explosives could have been used at a number of places throughout the buildings but in the end weren't what brought them down. Such use of explosives would obviously still be criminal, even if it were incompetent.

There is no reason that the variants need to come from me or anyone outside NIST. They were given millions of dollars and tasked with working through the problem. I've got a full time job doing something else yet in one day I can come up with two theories that fit all the known evidence while they can't think of a single one? They've shown a willful lack of imagination.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #215
219. but, eomer...
Edited on Tue Apr-28-09 06:49 AM by OnTheOtherHand
You're taking another big step down the road that I find so perplexing in the first place. Why would NIST try to rule out (ETA: or maybe I should just say "evaluate") every category of criminal intervention that "ended up having little or no connection with the actual collapse"? In one day you can come up with indefinitely many number of theories that fit all the known evidence, but a great many of them are essentially indistinguishable, practically and post hoc. Did a rogue band of malign maharishis experiment with the dark side of Transcendental Meditation? Surely we agree that "imagination" is not the only pertinent criterion here.

What NIST would be looking for is (1) ways of collecting reliable evidence, and (2) theories that fit the known evidence better than rival theories. On (1), "thermite" (or then again thermite residue) seems to be any of many dozens of combinations of metal and metal oxide, optionally combined with other elements and/or processed in various ways. If there's a reliable way to test for thermite, someone ought to tell the Bentham authors about it. And if thermite may have been used in welding during the original construction, then even a reliable test might not help very much -- assuming, perhaps, that we were able to test the correct beams. On (2), well, does the use of thermite explain eyewitness accounts better than NIST's account?

We seem to have a big framing issue here. Your hypothesis may indeed be more reasonable than 'thermite all the way down,' but I see it first and foremost as unfalsifiable. I can't see berating NIST for failing to spend more effort trying to test an unfalsifiable hypothesis -- unless it could do a lot more explanatory work than I see it doing. I think you must see this hypothesis doing more explanatory work than I understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 05:14 AM
Response to Reply #219
232. You're right -- NIST should not have been expected to falsify that theory, or any other theory.
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 05:17 AM by eomer
Here's what should have happened, in this order:
  1. Search and rescue,
  2. secure the crime scene,
  3. collect evidence,
  4. follow leads.

In any case where several thousand people are murdered and there are initial reports of explosions, step (3) should include the
proper agency (FBI?) sending in a team of specialists trained in investigation of a crime scene potentially involving explosives, who would collect materials using carefully designed and controlled methods that will maximize the evidentiary value of those materials, taking into account the unique requirements driven by explosives technology.

Whoever is assigned to step (4), in a major case, should be hungry for leads and follow all of them, even the ones that seem far-fetched. They should put me on the step (4) team, but not you.

In other words, we didn't need a bunch of engineers trying to figure out areas and angles that should be foreclosed. Rather we needed a bunch of hungry investigators, hundreds of them, who were tracking down every possible avenue, even the ones that sounded crazy. That's how to run an investigation of a crime of this magnitude unless, of course, you're not interested in actually solving it because you've already carefully built a narrative that fits your political purposes. ETA: "you" in the previous sentence does not refer to OTOH; I'm talking about the man.

There are other areas of investigation that were shut down for these same political purposes. There is a pattern here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #232
234. well, a couple of thoughts
First of all, as I understand it, NIST's role began about one year after the attacks. So to the extent that there was a failure to secure the crime scene and collect evidence, I believe that most of the harm was done long before NIST entered the frame.

Second, you've given me no basis for accepting your belief that NIST was remiss in not doing more to pursue your hypothesis. I don't see where you have demonstrated a "lead" that NIST should have followed. As far as I know, neither you nor I should be on the team; investigators with competence in the subject domain should be. I'm sympathetic to your notion that hungry investigators should be in on the act -- but from the range of work that NIST did, they don't seem altogether incurious. With regard to the view that NIST's failure to explore (through means unknown) your favored hypothesis to your satisfaction evinces some disgraceful lack of curiosity, it would mean more coming from someone with relevant knowledge than from the likes of us.

I can't tell whether you think that engineers are less curious or imaginative than your "hungry investigators," or what. When you say that even the avenues that sounded crazy should have been "track(ed) down," how much time and money do you think NIST should have spent on the hypothesis that "squibs" were used on many floors to bring the towers down? how much on directed energy weapons? how much on mini-nukes? Do you think that NIST scanted these hypotheses because of political purposes?

It seems to me that you disagree with NIST about the plausibility of a particular hypothesis; I'm not convinced that you really mean that NIST should have pursued all the ones that you yourself regard as crazy. So I'm suspicious of your attribution of political purposes, even if NIST indeed scanted your favored hypothesis.

Now, again, if there is a reliable and practical thermite test that NIST simply neglected to use, I'd construe that as negligent. Good forensic analysis does indeed entail looking for unexpected evidence (although I'm reluctant to criticize the people who didn't test the ponies for thermite). But when pursuing unfalsifiable hypotheses, one does have to decide at some point to Just Stop. So I guess my question is, what do you think would have been a legitimate way of exploring this one? I don't think that postulating indefinitely many "hungry investigators" resolves the question: even the hungriest investigator has to do specific things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 06:43 AM
Response to Reply #234
235. Response.
My favored hypothesis is merely that explosives were used and it is on the list merely because explosions were heard. So, while I'm in favor of even crazy leads being followed, this isn't one of the crazy ones. My theory isn't that thermite was used -- it is that explosives (thermite or some other) were used.

And as failures go, I'm particularly bothered by the failure to collect evidence. If the crime scene had been secured and evidence had been collected and properly safeguarded, then we would have preserved all our options. If new controversies arise or if new technologies develop, we would be in the best possible position to address them. If truth were the primary concern. All the cases of exoneration of innocent people that are occurring lately by way of new DNA technology are possible because evidence was collected at the only time it could be -- soon after the crime -- and then carefully preserved for decades.

Also, I don't know whether NIST would be the proper agency to provide support to the investigation. I believe their competencies run more toward computer simulation; don't know whether they are the right ones to run lab tests to determine chemical composition, etc.

But, anyway, such evidence wasn't collected and such lab tests weren't run, by whoever should have collected it and run them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #235
236. OK
It's beyond my purview to assess just how badly evidence gathering at Ground Zero was handled. I just don't know. I haven't seen a strong case for political interference.

NIST has definite chops in chemistry, although I'm not in a position to assess their particular expertise in forensics.

I accept your correction as to your favored hypothesis; I think similar issues arise regardless of the details.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #235
238. If explosives or thermite were used...
... then the steel where they were used would show clear visible signs of damage unlike the damage caused by a fire and a collapse. I believe a competent investigator could recognize such damage. Testing for explosives or thermite on steel or other debris, other than where it had been directly used, would literally be like looking for a needle in a haystack (unless you propose that far more was used than was necessary).

The "official story" is that FBI and FEMA did have quite a few investigators combing the debris during the clean-up, and a team of volunteer ASCE engineers inspected all the steel arriving at Fresh Kill, looking for samples that would help in the investigation. No tests were done for explosives or thermite, and I take that to mean that no visible signs of such damage were seen.

So, it would seem that either: A) there weren't really any (or enough) investigators looking for such damage, so it escaped attention; B) there were investigators, but they were incompetent to recognize such damage; C) they deliberately ignored it as part of a cover-up; or D) there were no visible signs of explosives or thermite being used, so chemical testing was not called for.

Since I'm 100% certain that no explosives or thermite were necessary to bring down the buildings, I'm willing to rule out D if and only if you can give me a very good reason to. That's mainly because I find it highly implausible that anyone would plot a demolition of the towers with explosives or thermite and simply count on controlling the clean-up so completely that they could be sure of getting away with it. Even if I assume that someone wanted a "false flag" attack, there was simply no need for such a complicated and risky scheme involving so many people and such an elaborate deception. They could have simply driven a bigger truck with a bigger bomb into the parking garage, and everything would be exactly as it seemed to be, except for who got blamed.

So, please give me your best reason for ruling out D.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #238
239. thanks for weighing in, and a question
Your post provides some very helpful specifics. Is it generally agreed that explosives and/or thermite would have left "clear visible signs of damage"? (I simply don't pretend to know anything about forensic investigation of thermitic demolition.)

It seems to me that the issue would be whether there are strong reasons to prefer D to A through C, not whether D can actually be ruled out entirely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 11:38 AM
Response to Reply #239
241. I read a good article on that somewhere -- I'll try to find it again (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #238
242. Sorry,
I'm not interested in engaging in complex logical analysis to try to infer how much investigation FBI/FEMA must have done and why they must have done it, extrapolating from scant, vague, and unsourced information. If you've got a link to something that describes what they actually did and why they actually did it, I'd be very interested in reading it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #242
243. Sure
The best description of what the ASCE did is probably in the testimony submitted to the 9/11 Commission by the team lead, Dr. Gene Corley:
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

Among other things, he says: "The teams assembled by SEI/ASCE are comprised of leading experts in the fields of structural analysis and design, fire engineering, blast effects, and building materials."

I'll look for an article I read several months ago that described the visible effects of both high explosives and thermite, and in particular why they would be very noticeable, but I didn't see it with a quick search and sorry I won't have much time tonight -- I'll try tomorrow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-29-09 09:02 PM
Response to Reply #243
244. Actually, the best description is elsewhere.
Edited on Wed Apr-29-09 09:38 PM by eomer
Dr. Corley's description glosses over and puts a positive spin on it that is not justified. And your link is not testimony submitted to the 911 Commission; it is testimony submitted to the House Science Committee for a hearing on March 6, 2002. The full record of that hearing (which I was already reading when I saw your post) gives a much better picture of the investigation than Dr. Corley's self-serving description does.

The full transcript of the hearing, including both oral and written testimony, is here:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

The full picture is a pretty disturbing one. None of the agencies represented at the hearing actually performed an investigation or collected evidence. Rather, they performed an assessment. The did not follow any protocol to collect evidence, properly safeguard it, and create a chain of custody. They did not have authority to seize evidence or subpoena power to demand documents. The question remains whether the FBI perhaps collected some evidence; none of these entities represented at the hearing (ASCE, FEMA, NSF, and NIST) did.

The City was completely uncooperative, to the point of creating an appearance of trying to obstruct the efforts of the assessment teams rather than assist them. It was the City that decided to remove materials and destroy them and the assessment teams could do nothing to stop it. The City refused to provide building blueprints for months and only did so when their lack of cooperation made the news. The assessment teams were not allowed on the site until several weeks after the event.

Here are some of the more telling snippets from the hearing and written testimony (from the link I gave above):


Mr. WEINER.

On November 12, I, and my constituents, had the misfortune—and hundreds of families were ravaged by the crash of Flight 586. Within literally moments of that plane crash, the National Transportation Safety Board was on the ground sequestering evidence, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing information, if necessary. And since then, they have offered periodic reports.

One month and a day earlier, when the World Trade Center collapsed, nothing could have been further from the truth. According to reports that we have heard since, there has been no comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that there was virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven't examined any aspects of the collapse that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month.

Second, reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80 percent of the steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling, much of it, if not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the information.

Third, we have allowed this investigation to become woefully bogged down and in fighting and lack of cooperation among agencies. Researchers from FEMA did not get timely access to the designs of the building. News accounts have said there has been friction between engineers in FEMA because of concerns about where the information would wind up.

Even the National Science Foundation, which has awarded grants to several scientists to study the collapse, but didn't coordinate these efforts with FEMA or the American Society of Civil Engineers.

And, finally, we have seen painfully that the financial commitment to this investigation simply is not there. It is not uncommon to spend tens of millions of dollars investigating why a plane crashed. But we have yet to spend even a million dollars on this investigation, and the Bush Administration has refused to commit to release the full funding necessary.



PREPARED STATEMENT OF GLENN P. CORBETT

The building performance assessment currently being conducted of the World Trade Center collapse is just that: an assessment, not an investigation. While the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) is composed of an elite group of engineers and scientists, the standard procedures used by the BPAT have proven to be inadequate. Handling the collapse study as an assessment has allowed valuable evidence—the steel building components—to be destroyed. The steel holds the primary key to understanding the chronology of events and causal factors resulting in the collapse.

Without an investigative presence, the FEMA-sanctioned assessment team did not have the authority—nor the organizational wherewithal—to ensure that all of the structural steel was thoroughly examined and the crucial steel from the points of impact saved for examination. Only a handful of pieces of steel from the points of impact have been secured to date. In addition, the BPAT studying the collapse has apparently been hampered in accessing building construction documents.

These hindrances will have an impact on the BPAT report, due to be released in April. The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse.

The collapse of the World Trade Center towers were the largest structural collapses in world history. A disaster of such epic proportions demands that we fully resource a comprehensive, detailed investigation. Instead, we are staffing the BPAT with part-time engineers and scientists on a shoestring budget.



Mr. CROWLEY. I have a number of questions that I think I would address to Mr. Shea, Dr. Corley, and Dr. Bement firstly. And one, can any one of you gentlemen tell me who was in charge of amassing the steel and other debris as a result from the attack of September 11 on the WTC?

Mr. SHEA. I am not sure I understand fully your question, but——

Mr. CROWLEY. In other words, who—what entity was in charge of collecting the material?

Mr. SHEA. FEMA commissioned the Building Performance Assessment Team, and it was that team, led by Dr. Corley, that would have embraced that responsibility.

Mr. CROWLEY. Did they determine which debris would be sold off as scrap? And if not, who did?

Mr. SHEA. I will—yeah, I will defer to Dr. Corley on that.

Dr. CORLEY. No. We did not determine that. That was determined, I understand, by the City of New York. We——

Mr. CROWLEY. When did you—when did you become aware that the steel from the World Trade Center was being sold off?

Dr. CORLEY. I think it was on the order of a week or so before we arrived on site, on October the 5th, I believe it was.

Mr. CROWLEY. So they were—they—in other words, the city was selling or was disposing of material within two weeks of the actual event, or was it prior to that?

Dr. CORLEY. It may have been prior to that. I am not sure when the first decision was made on that. But I didn't find out—we didn't find out about it until then.

Mr. CROWLEY. Were you disturbed by that—by finding that out? Were you disturbed to find out that the city was actually disposing of or selling off that material?

Dr. CORLEY. We had previously indicated that we definitely wanted to see the steel and select quantities that were——

Mr. CROWLEY. Did you or did FEMA or any other entity actually ask or tell the City of New York to cease and desist from disposing of that material?

Dr. CORLEY. As far as the team is concerned, we made it known that we needed steel. And I don't have any knowledge that anyone had the authority even to ask them to cease and desist.

Mr. CROWLEY. So no one even asked them politely to stop selling what, in all likelihood, could be evidence? Dr. Astaneh.

Dr. ASTANEH-ASL. But I believe I was the first one to find out that the steel was being recycled. New York Times Reporter Jim Glanz told me two weeks after the quake—after the collapse. And I tried to contact the city and also the New York Times reporters tried to make sure we could have access to the steel to do the research. It was not happening. And I went myself—directly contacted the recycling plant and made the arrangement. Through their cooperation, I started work there and collected the steel. And later, two weeks later, I believe, the ASCE team came also and they started their work.

Mr. CROWLEY. Now, Dr. Corley, you said that no significant loss occurred, or no significant difference, I think was the word you used.

Dr. CORLEY. Yes.

Mr. CROWLEY. On any outcome that would be determined by the loss of that material.

Dr. CORLEY. That is my opinion at this point. Yes.

Mr. CROWLEY. So you don't believe that there was any material that was lost that was significant that day.

Dr. CORLEY. No. I really didn't say that. What I said was that I believe—or what I implied was that we will be able to draw supportable conclusions and analyze the building to understand what happened without the steel that has been disposed of.



Mr. WEINER. ... But I am also surprised by the characterization of the Chairman, however well-meaning, that the city was cooperative. We just heard testimony that the city was the opposite of cooperative. That they had refused to provide basic information.

And the issue isn't when members of the panel signed a document agreeing not to sue, it is where you get off agreeing not to testify. You are public officials gathering information for the public. You don't own it. You don't have the ability to say I won't use it here. I will use it there. You will use it wherever we say you will use it. If you come before us after looking at these blueprints and you decide that the Port Authority was at fault, and you raise your right hand because the Chairman asks you to, you are going to tell us, I don't care what you sign.

The idea that—and this is a government agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. It is not a foreign planet. It is not a private company. These are—this is an organization that is funded with our taxpayer dollars, with our fees when we fly in and out of airports. The idea that they should demand that whatever information is collected should not be held against them, well, that is not, to me, being cooperative.

And let us not kid ourselves. Whenever you ask for it, Mr. Wingo, you aren't going to get it unless the New York Times ran a story on Christmas Day. All right. The truth be told, that if it weren't for the fact that attention was called to this and bright lights were shown on it, they would not have cooperated to this day—I would be surprised if you would have the blueprints that you needed.

And to give you a sense, the importance of the blueprints, so we all understand it, you know, if we are going to do an investigation of the strength and weaknesses of the trusses that firefighters speak so much about, well, you need the blueprints to find out where to even look—where do you look in the rubble.

And the idea that the city was cooperative—well, I am not so sure. You know, the two things are not mutually exclusive. Recovering someone and examining the steel that might have been laying on top of them, are not mutually exclusive. You can do that at Great Kills. You can do that on the truck before it is loaded onto the barge. You can do it on the barge.

The idea that there was some level of cooperation, I have to tell you, the anecdotal record is replete with stories of people having cameras confiscated from them, being stopped at checkpoints. You are officials of the United States Government. The idea that this should have to be a subject of a long negotiation over what information would be at your disposal, to me is most troubling.


Edit to add: In other words, the Bush administration and fellow neocons in the Giuliani city administration did not want an investigation that would uncover any truth. Bush made sure not to allow reasonable funding that would have allowed setting up a command center to escrow and reconstruct evidence like the NTSB does for a major crash. Giuliani did everything he could to sabotage the assessment team. This is clearly an example of the Bush doctrine in action:

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-30-09 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #244
246. No, that is not the best description; it's very misleading
Edited on Thu Apr-30-09 09:10 AM by William Seger
You are correct that the testimony was for the science committee, not the 9/11 Commission (sorry, it's been a while since I saved that link), but you are taking those quotes out of context. It's true that the BPAT team didn't get underway until October, but they weren't the only investigators. From that same committee hearing:

Researchers also began to respond immediately. Among the first were National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded social scientists and engineers who arrived at the WTC site within 48 to 72 hours after the tragedy to begin collecting data. Similarly, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) formed a Disaster Response Team within hours of the first plane strike. On September 12th, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its contractor, Greenhorne and O'Mara, Inc., located in Greenbelt, Maryland, commenced the development of a Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT; explained more fully on the next page) to conduct a formal analysis of the progressive collapses and produce a report of its findings. A variety of other engineering researchers and professionals, including members of the Structural Engineering Association of New York, also engaged in the monumental task of collecting data that could lead to a better understanding of the collapse of the buildings themselves and to the development of mitigation strategies to prevent a similar tragedy in the future.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy77747.000/hsy77747_0f.htm

When the BPAT team arrived, there were already ASCE, NSF, and FEMA investigators at work, and of course the FBI,. Yes, it's true that some steel was recycled before the BPAT team got to examine it, and that should not have happened, but it's very misleading to say or imply that it was rushed off to China before anyone could see it. Corley doesn't believe that it prevented an accurate understanding of the root cause of the collapse, and I don't really understand why you think his testimony was "self-serving." As the person most responsible for the BPAT report, if he thought circumstances beyond his control had seriously affected the report, it would have been to his advantage to make an issue of it and point fingers.

I agree that there was a lot of disorder and confusion, and that during the early days there was not enough emphasis on collecting evidence that would have given NIST better data for their collapse model, particularly with respect to fire damage. I'm not saying otherwise. But again, my point is that any theory that the alleged plotters decided to bring down the building with explosives or thermite has to believe that either they were extremely powerful to have control over those ASCE DRT and NSF volunteers, as well as everyone involved from FEMA and the FBI, or that the very stupid plotters got very lucky that none of those investigators noticed any tell-tale damage to the steel.

I don't offer that implausibility as proof of anything, but rather as a reason why you would need some strong evidence that that's what happened before the demolition theory would become plausible. Got any?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-30-09 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #246
248. The piece that you quoted is spin, not concrete facts.
The piece you quote is part of the hearing charter, which would have been prepared by the House Science Committee under Republican control in 2002.

When you read the testimony of the NSF representative in the hearing record, you will see he says that he not only didn't get access to the WTC site within a couple of days, he didn't get access to the WTC site at all:

Here are some samples of my work. I was not able to access Ground Zero, so I have done my investigation at the scrap yard, looking into important failure modes and collecting important items from the recycling plant.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-30-09 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #248
250. But he said he DID collect samples, at the scrap yard
Again, I'm not offering this as proof of anything except that the story about steel being shipped off to China before any non-FBI investigators saw it doesn't really hold water. If you prefer to continue thinking that the perps managed to pull that off, suit yourself, but that's your case to make. I don't think anyone needs to try to prove every speculation wrong; the burden of proof is on the speculators.

I'm still wondering what your evidence is that there were explosives. If it's just that some people heard what sounded like explosions, that's not good enough -- especially since most of those were well before the collapses started, and of course not all explosive sounds are caused by explosives. As for direct evidence, explosives seem extremely implausible to me because I can see for myself that the perimeter columns were bending inward on both towers well in advance of the collapse. And for WTC2 at least, we have a very clear video of the columns buckling inward to start the collapse. How do you do that with explosives? When I add that direct evidence to my own certainty that no explosives were necessary to cause the collapses, it seems like a completely unnecessary theory, so I'd need some pretty substantial evidence before I would start considering it as plausible. The whole reason that the demolition theory was invented in the first place was because some people couldn't understand how the collapses could have happened without explosives. Well, I do understand it pretty well I think, so that argument just doesn't do anything for me. I'm also wondering why the perps would have come up with this Rube Goldberg plane-attack-fake-collapse scheme with the expectation that not only would it succeed but they would be able to cover up all the evidence, when there was absolutely no need for such a complicated and risky scheme. But of course that doesn't prove anything either; as I said, it just substantially increases the implausibility, so it increases the requirement for convincing evidence.

If you find it interesting to speculate about demolition, okay, but I honestly cannot understand how anyone could consider that the most probable explanation. It seems more like an attempt to cram what happened into a pre-existing conspiracy speculation, and conspiracists seem to have an amazing ability to do that with everything that happened, or didn't happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #250
251. Yes, the story does hold water.
The brief discussion we've had so far supports the conclusion that the story does hold water, not that it doesn't.

One particular that our last couple of posts raises is the nuance of where and when the steel was examined. If the NSF representative that I quoted was denied access to ground zero and could only look at steel when it arrived at the recycling center, then that pretty much destroys any chance he might have had of doing a quick visual determination whether a column had been cut as part of demolition, doesn't it? The steel arriving to the recycling center would have already been cut up as part of the cleanup.

So the argument that there was no need to check for explosives because there were investigators sifting through ground zero from the very start of the cleanup and they would have easily seen any evidence of demolition if it existed is, as far as I can tell, false. So far I don't see any substantive indication that in the first couple of weeks of cleanup there were actually investigators on the ground zero site doing that sifting that has been claimed.

Regarding whether my evidence is good enough, keep in mind that the standard of proof requirement here is essentially zero. We're not talking about a situation where probable cause has to be shown first before a warrant for a search can be obtained, or any other case where some minimum level of proof must be obtained. Rather, we're talking about a situation where an investigator is free to choose which lead to pursue based on the merest whim or even no reason at all. In this context, explosions heard is already more than enough evidence for an investigator with a slight bit of curiosity to decide to check for explosives.

And finally, my interest in demolition is driven by the fact that there is popular controversy about it. That makes it interesting, to me, to try to determine how much we know, why we do or don't know it, and what can conclusively be ruled in or out by solid facts and logic.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #251
254. Nope, dont' think so
I still haven't located the article that showed some steel beams that had been severed by shaped explosives, but explosives literally rip the steel apart rather than melting it, and it doesn't look anything like a torch cut or a buckling fracture. The article also showed some examples of thermite-melted steel -- small examples, since there doesn't seem to be a single known example of cutting something as large as a WTC core column with thermite -- and it produces a large amount of slag, and also the irregular edges would hardly look like a torch cut. So, I'm pretty sure investigators at the scrap yards would have noticed either, if they were looking at all.

I think that the FBI investigators were probably very much interested in looking for signs of explosives, too. Conspiracists are obliged to think they were interested in covering it up, but that's just another area where the alleged perps took another unnecessary risk if they needed to go to FBI agents and ask them to help cover up a mass murder. Unless you suppose that all FBI agents are amoral, the perps could have easily been busted just trying to put the team together. (I don't think any whistleblowers would need to be concerned about losing their job: They'd make a fortune on TV appearances and book rights.)

I find the demolition theories and other conspiracy theories very interesting, too, but I suspect for very different reasons than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #254
255. I'm just not interested in these indirect approaches.
Direct evidence is what I'm looking for.

A simple way to shed some light on the thermitic chips theory is to take paint chips from WTC steel and run the same tests that the Harrit et al team ran on the chips from the dust.

I don't see any good reason not to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #255
264. That's exactly what I've been saying
(...except it seems that the tests Harrit et al used are not the best for the purpose, since XEDS can't tell the difference between elemental alumninum plus free oxygen and aluminum oxide, and the DCS test should have been done in an inert atmosphere instead of air.)

Not that the red rustproofing is the only possibility; it's just the most obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #254
304. Umm...Bill...What's The Name Of Sibel Edmonds' Book? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
113. It isn't baseless or wild.
You can disagree with their conclusions, but they did have a foundation for them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #113
121. The thing is
None of the things NIST says about thermite are actually true.


A response to NIST statements regarding thermite
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf


It's one thing to have an honest disagreement, but nearly everything NIST says about the collapses on 9/11 is an outright fabrication. And they have fooled some intelligent people like yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #121
122. In this case, jberryhill is more capable of refuting the JONES paper.
I don't know if you're aware, but he is a patent attorney. While I might have a rudimentary understanding of the patent process, he is a better authority. Suffice to say that a patent is no guarantee of performance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #122
201. But Don't You Think "They" Would Have Secretly Tested For Efficacy 1st? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #201
202. I see what you mean.
What's the point in positing super-sekrit evil geniuses if you don't avail yourself of their super-sekrit evil genius ways?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #202
205. Well Yeah, It's Like Positing...
the biggest obstacle for the tenth century assassin was smuggling his machinegun into the castle. Hey, didn't you see my #200 in response to your #189?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #205
206. You might want to repost your #200 without the personal attack. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #206
207. "Dutch Boy" Was A Brand Of Ordinary Housepaint, DB=Paint Chips Get It? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #207
210. It's a blatant personal attack. Apologize or find your bickering elsewhere. n/t
Edited on Mon Apr-27-09 06:05 PM by Bolo Boffin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #210
213. ? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #122
216. Am I Missing Something Here...
Jack Bauer doesn't wait for patents. Jack Bauer doesn't ask permission. Jack Bauer can keep a secret. The chemical engineers and physicists back at CTU know full well Jack can't abide a rat.

Until they develop something even better there won't be any patent applications and commercial development of the existing secret nano-thermite. Seriously, if Jones' magic dust is an advanced nano-thermite for which there is no innocuous explanantion, these kind of questions that you and others raise, while defensible, fall by the board. The elephant is in the room. Who cares if this exact elephant is already known to science or not? Let's find out exactly what this elephant is and is not and what it can do. Which will require further testing. Among other things Seger seems to be saying it can't be a nano-thermite unless it is an already known nano-thermite (I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood his argument). I do agree that Jones would have saved himself some grief if he had tested other paint samples but what you guys see as due diligence he may have seen as proving a negative. Is it a bright line?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-28-09 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #216
227. I think I see your problem.
Jack Bauer is a fictional character in a television show.

Regarding your actual point, there's a problem. You can propose an unknown device using an unknown method (which might actually exist) but in the absence of any real evidence (Jones' paper does not qualify, for reasons listed many times in this thread) a hypothesis relying on this would be set aside in favor of hypotheses for which there is evidence. It doesn't mean it's invalid, just that it's unsupported.

Our problem with Jones' paper and his testing of paint is that he claims to have ruled out paint as the explanation for the source of his "chips" when he didn't actually perform adequate testing to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-25-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #58
74. Ah No "genious"
that would be the FBI. Wrong government acronym.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rollingrock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #74
123. Yeah, well
you got me there man.

but my point still stands. whoever was in charge of
the investigationshould have done their job properly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #123
124. For some reason, I thought the FBI did test for explosives.
I could be wrong, though. NIST certainly didn't test for them.

It's important to remember that testing for thermitic compounds isn't conclusive evidence. NFPA 921 is pretty clear about this (I'll find a reference tomorrow).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhymeandreason Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 04:12 AM
Response to Original message
88. Hoffman has also provided an imaginative and ludicrous
scenario for the installation of all of the super-thermite involving completely replacing 1.8 million ceiling tiles in WTC1 and WTC2 with super-thermite charged ceiling tiles:


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html#steelwork

excerpt:

Ceiling Tiles

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.

5.8.4 Ceilings

There were two different ceiling tile systems originally installed in the towers under Port Authority specification. The framing for each was hung from the bottom of the floor trusses, resulting in an apparent room height of 8.6 ft and an above-ceiling height of about 3.4 ft. The tiles in the tenant spaces were 20 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, lay-in pieces on an exposed tee bar grid system. The tiles in the core area were 12 in. square, 3/4 in. thick, mounted in a concealed suspension system.

-- NIST Final Report on the Twin Towers

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-26-09 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #88
115. Yes, this was quite foolish.
I wonder if Hoffman's ever been inside a building with a dropped ceiling, or at the very least popped a couple of tiles and taken a peek above one. Also, another poster at another forum checked his numbers and found some alarming mathematical errors (I haven't corroborated this yet).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhymeandreason Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #115
164. Hoffman's scenario does seem divorced from reality.
Usually he seems to maintain some kind objectivity and even makes concessions but this bit is just slapdash and dopey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-27-09 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #164
184. I don't know why he advanced it.
Speculating about his motives is pointless, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-30-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
247. Nobody believes this. Nobody believes this.
Edited on Thu Apr-30-09 01:22 PM by Bolo Boffin
Hoffman's whacked out Mission: Impossible scenario has explosive nanothermite ceiling tiles with their own wireless transmitter. And at that, I just stopped looking at what Hoffman had to say.

Which was a shame, because right below the explosive nanothermite ceiling tiles with their own individual wireless transmitter, Hoffman hypothesized nanothermite kicker charges with their own wireless detonators, all rolled up in a fire-protective container disguised as fire extinguishers!!!!

Nobody believes this. Nobody believes this happened. Not Hoffman, not Jones, not Herrit, not Richard Gage, not any person here. This is all bullshit!

What happens when somebody pulls the "fire extinguisher" off the wall and tries to put out a fire with it?

I refuse to believe that anyone truly believes this kind of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-30-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #247
249. A Brief Note On Paints, Mr. Boffin, You May Find Interesting
Edited on Thu Apr-30-09 07:39 PM by The Magistrate
Paints incorporating very finely ground aluminum particles have been employed as an anti-corrosive coating from near the start of the twentieth century. The particles emerging from the pigment milling have generally been tiny flat flakes. When the paint is applied, these settle down through the medium as it dries, and form sort of skin directly contacting the surface being covered, serving as a protective barrier against oxidation of the underlying material.

Powdered rust is also used as an anti-corrosive pigment in paints. The pigment particles form a barrier layer which has already exhausted its potential for reaction with oxygen, and offers it no footing for chemical reaction. Rust will not 'burn' further, any more than any other form of completely combusted ash will.

The two pigments have often been used in conjunction, whether by successive layers of different paints or mixed into a single application. When used in conjunction they do retain a certain flammability. One instance of this was the conflagration of the Hindenburg. The great effectiveness of rust pigment as a block to actinic rays, and the reflectivity of aluminum powder pigments, led to their frequent use in tandem as a covering for cloth in the classic period of aviation, with the rust being applied first and the aluminum over the top of it. Investigation by the manufacturers of the Hindenburg demonstrated that a static electricity build-up near the tail of the airship had managed to ignite a small area of the mating layers of the two pigments, which produced sufficient heat to spread from its borders, igniting the cloth covering of the airship and eventually involving its hydrogen cells.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 07:41 AM
Response to Reply #249
252. So you are calling for investigation?
Investigation by the manufacturers of the Hindenburg demonstrated...


If these dust samples are representative and if the theory implicit in your post is true then there was a lot of inflammable paint used in the WTC towers, which in hindsight sounds like a bad idea. Bad enough to warrant further investigation, I think.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #252
257. Well, it's a good thing the paint was under the fireproofing.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-01-09 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #252
258. Hardly, Sir, Certainly Not On This Line
It simply seemed worth pointing out that things which struck the hyperventilating 'researchers' at the top of this exercise as something strange and extraordinary, to the point they could only imagine it a purposeful explosive, are pretty standard and long-standing anti-corrosion coatings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #258
284. Then you must believe these questions have already been answered:
  1. Is there any prohibition against using these types of inflammable paints on the critical steel structures of high-rise buildings?
  2. Were these types of paints actually used on the steel structures of the WTC towers (easily determined by taking some sample chips and testing them)?
  3. If these types of paints were used on steel structures of the WTC towers, exactly how do they behave in a fire when they have been applied just the way they were, including whatever fire-proofing was applied over the top of them.
  4. If these types of paints were used on steel structures of the WTC towers, did their flammability contribute to the collapse?
  5. Are there non-flammable paint alternatives that would work well enough in providing corrosion resistance and therefore should be required in place of the inflammable ones?

I have no idea whether they have been answered, but would like to. Do you know where the answers can be found?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #284
287. Jones' chips have much less energy density than paper
Edited on Sat May-02-09 09:24 AM by William Seger
... and they are only about 0.003" thick. Some people (e.g. Dr. Greening and Ryan Mackey) have calculated that even if 100% of their energy went into the columns, that would raise the temperature of a large thick column maybe 10o, or of a thin perimeter column maybe as much as 50o. But 100% is not a realistic figure; in open air, probably less than 10% of the heat would have gone into the columns, so a difference of 1o to 5o is more likely.

I believe this is why Jones refuses to speculate how his chips could have brought down the towers, even it they were pure thermite (which they certainly are not).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #287
290. OK, thanks.
That is helpful info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-02-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #284
296. Not One Of Those Questions, Sir, Bears On The Topic At Hand
Which is the claim, first, that the impact of large aircraft at high speed, and the damage, including fires, which resulted from this, did not actually cause the buildings in time to collapse, and second, that evidence has been found of the placement of a new and sophisticated, purpose-created incendiary explosive was the actual cause of the collapse of the buildings. Both claims are, in their own amusing ways, nonesense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-03-09 07:04 AM
Response to Reply #296
303. One of them definitely does bear on the topic at hand.
2. Were these types of paints actually used on the steel structures of the WTC towers (easily determined by taking some sample chips and testing them)?


Are you in favor of testing the paint on some of the WTC steel samples to see if it is this type of inflammable paint?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-07-09 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
305. Holy OCT diversion!! This scares the zombies
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eomer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-10-09 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
309. Is the red rusproofing paint on WTC steel ruled out as a source of the chips?
There were quite a few posts in this thread about the possibility that the red chips came from the red rustproofing paint on WTC steel.

Does everyone agree that Niels Harrit's recent analysis rules out the red paint on WTC steel being the source of the chips?

In particular, Bolo Boffin posted twice a photo of red paint on WTC steel that actually contained a clue to Harrit's argument in its caption, which says that the paint in the photo had been tested by heating to 650 degrees centigrade. But the red chips tested by Harriet combusted at a temperature of 430 degrees centigrade. Was the answer (to this one narrow question) in front of us all along and we missed it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 25th 2020, 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC