Peer-reviewed 911 Dust Study

Captain Furball

http://files.meetup.com/749288/NanoThermite%20paper.pdf

meglome

What does it say?

Not really.

It was published in a dodgy journal that allowed you to pick the review committee for a fee.

It was also published on the same journal that published a bull**** computer generated paper.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

And more importantly the science is pretty flawed.
1. The samples were taken years after the attacks.
2. They never exclude other sources for thermite-like substances.
The chemical formula for Thermite is Fe2O3 + 2Al. AKA rust and aluminium. Both where present at 9/11.
3. Thermite has never been used in any kind of controlled demolition.

There's a lot more problems with the science but chemistry goes over my head.

But this is kinda an important bit I could understand.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4584589&postcount=74

Mahatma coat

It was also published on the same journal that published a bull**** computer generated paper.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...d-journal.html

Really:eek: !!!!

well then obviously you can link to This PUBLISHED ARTICLE.

And more importantly the science is pretty flawed.
1. The samples were taken years after the attacks.
2. They never exclude other sources for thermite-like substances.
The chemical formula for Thermite is Fe2O3 + 2Al. AKA rust and aluminium. Both where present at 9/11.


There's a lot more problems with the science but chemistry goes over my head.

So which is it???

if you are going to claim that the science is flawed then YOU have tyo provide something that demonstrates how the science is Flawed.

and by that I mean the Science being presented here to you, not the journal that it is being presented in

3. Thermite has never been used in any kind of controlled demolition.

as far as YOU are aware

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Really:eek: !!!!

well then obviously you can link to This PUBLISHED ARTICLE.

The link was broken.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html

The paper that was accepted is linked in that article.

Edit: Actually my mistake, it wasn't published but it was accepted to be published pending the fee.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

So which is it???

Most of the chemistry goes over my head. However there are rather large holes in the methodology as I outlined.

1. The samples were taken years after the attacks.
2. They never exclude other sources for thermite-like substances.
The chemical formula for Thermite is Fe2O3 + 2Al. AKA rust and aluminium. Both where present at 9/11.
3. Thermite has never been used in any kind of controlled demolition.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if you are going to claim that the science is flawed then YOU have tyo provide something that demonstrates how the science is Flawed.

Well what's wrong with the points I brought up?

Or the point raised here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4584589&postcount=74

Mahatma coat wrote: »

and by that I mean the Science being presented here to you, not the journal that it is being presented in

So then claiming that it was published in a good peer reviewed journal is the truth?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as far as YOU are aware

And as far as I know no building has ever been knocked down by a unicorn.

Maybe you can provide an example of a building that was demolished by thermite?

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

if you are going to claim that the science is flawed then YOU have tyo provide something that demonstrates how the science is Flawed.

and by that I mean the Science being presented here to you, not the journal that it is being presented in


as far as YOU are aware

I'm no scientist that's for sure. But I'd like to add here what I would consider common sense.

• The way the samples appear to have been collected is dubious to say the least. The locations and especially the timeframes are not good.
• The ingredients of thermite are common and certainly would have been common in the WTC.
• Not once, eight years after 911, has anyone come up with a known use of thermite in controlled demolition. To the best of my knowledge there isn't even a proper experiment to show it would work in practice. I believe there are some theoretical mechanisms that might work but they are so cumbersome that in reality would be impossible to install without anyone knowing.

So while I'm no scientist I don't need to be to spot the obvious problems. And I think these problems are large enough to make this entire report very suspect.

This paper has come up before.
And bonkey pointed out a another flaw in it's science

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60749804&postcount=56

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60754245&postcount=67

Mahatma coat

1. The samples were taken years after the attacks.

Odd, the first paragraph says this

article wrote:

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material

2. They never exclude other sources for thermite-like substances.
The chemical formula for Thermite is Fe2O3 + 2Al. AKA rust and aluminium. Both where present at 9/11.

so just to clarify here, you accept that they found 'thermite like Substances' all over the place just minutes after the buildings fell.

3. Thermite has never been used in any kind of controlled demolition.

Ah yes again with the hilarious Unicorn reference,

we can show that Thermite does actually exist

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Odd, the first paragraph says this

article wrote:

Abstract: We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the
destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in
this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan
resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy
dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material

And it also says this:

On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis.

...

Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously
sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008
for analysis.

...

Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so just to clarify here, you accept that they found 'thermite like Substances' all over the place just minutes after the buildings fell.

Nope. Not even close.

The found a substance that they claim is "Nano" thermite in four samples that are claimed to have been collected minutes after the attack.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Ah yes again with the hilarious Unicorn reference,

we can show that Thermite does actually exist

Can you show that thermite has ever been use to demolish a building?

Because in all these years of debate about that topic not one example of a building being demolished by thermite has ever come up.

And are you going to address the other points I brought up?

6th

Captain Furball wrote: »

http://files.meetup.com/749288/NanoThermite%20paper.pdf

Lazy thread starting. In future all threads that start without some input by the thread starter will be locked.

bonkey

If a body billed itself as "independant", but received all of its funding from government, had its board of governance appointed by government, and its agenda basically dictated by government, I have little doubt that anyone here would argue that the term "independant" was being misused...even if there were grounds to say that when viewed from a certain angle, in a certain light, it wouldn't be incorrect to use it.

When it comes to scientific terminology, however, there seems a far greater willingness to take the opposite stance...if a term can be said to be technically accurate in some form or other, then it doesn't matter that its a completely different meaning to what is understood by the scientific community.

"Theory" was - and is - perhaps the most common victim. All too often, we see a scientific Theory conflated with the notion of a "theory" - an idea of any sort.

"Peer Review" seems to be the new victim.

This paper was reviewed. Those doing the reviewing can be considered "peers" of the authors. Thus, the paper was peer-reviewed...just like the government-funded, government-controlled organisation is "independant", and my suspicions of who dunnit in a murder mystery is a theory.

Nehaxak

Just like to say that yes, the ingredients for thermite are common but they must be mixed together in a specific and balanced way in order to get it's full effect.

However, melting iron and melting aluminium mixing together can also create similar effects to a perfectly balanced thermite mix. Given the heat generated by the fires in the buildings, it would not be unusual to come to the conclusion that metals were melting and mixing together.

These kinds of CT's around 911 do nothing but distract and detract from the terrorist attrocity that took place and I'd be more inclined to put efforts towards finding out how all of those directly involved, with some already under surveillance - managed to train themselves sufficiently enough to fly the aircraft, get onboard with weapons in the first place and why indeed they seemed to be allowed to do all of that with no hinderance at all to their plans from start to finish.
That to me is the main CT involved with 911 if anything.