Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Scott G

A "Truth" is soon forgotten, where as a lie continues to fester without end .

Amen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missile Punch

Oh, for sure. 3000 dead on a single day, but they're doing top notch, right? But not to fear, everything will do better after all the new "security measures" right? Such as the patriot act, for instance. That act has choice measures such as the following one:

Oh yes I'm sure you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the US government was responsible. No you can't. I'm not saying the government doesn't take part in shady acts. I'm not even saying that they're doing a good job right now. But I am confident that your arrogance is groundless. You have bits and pieces that you've taken from other nutjob conspiracy theorists, you smash the pieces together and call it evidence of some diabolical plot formulated by the government so that we can get oil from the middle east! Reality check. The US isn't in very good shape right now. It's obvious that there has been ZERO benefit from the events that took place on 9/11, and the war that resulted. Nearly Three thousand lives. And it seems borderline disrespectful to sweep their deaths under the rug while conspiracy theorists scramble for nonexistent evidence of a false flag policy with no direction. Take it as it ACTUALLY is. A terrorist attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Oh yes I'm sure you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the US government was responsible. No you can't.

As someone in the pilot episode of X-files spinoff "The Lone Gunmen" said:

"There you go, blaming the entire government as usual. A faction, a small faction..."

So yeah, I don't blame the "US government" per se, it's just a small faction within it. Unfortunately, that faction was pretty much at the top of the hierarchy on 9/11.

I'm not saying the government doesn't take part in shady acts. I'm not even saying that they're doing a good job right now. But I am confident that your arrogance is groundless.

Alright, how about we step down the rhetoric and analyze what you just said; you seem to think that I'm arrogant and that my -claims- are groundless. How about we focus on the claim; my implied claim is that the government could have prevented 9/11. I stand by that claim. There's a fair amount of evidence that supports this claim. You may be interested in seeing this particular article regarding Able Danger, for a start:

http://alexconstanti...ruth-about.html

You have bits and pieces that you've taken from other nutjob conspiracy theorists,

Implying that I'm a "nutjob conspiracy theorist". The administration here apparently allows people to call each other nutjobs, though it doesn't approve, so I'll just say that much. Look, if all you'll do is glance at the evidence I present and call it "bits and pieces", you'll never get anywhere. I'll just keep on presenting the same pieces of evidence and you'll keep on refusing to connect the dots. If you're a serious 9/11 researcher, you'll look at the evidence and point out where you think it's mistaken, not just dismiss it.

you smash the pieces together and call it evidence of some diabolical plot formulated by the government so that we can get oil from the middle east!

Again, the government is a very large entity. The left foot frequently doesn't know what the right foot is doing. But there's certainly a lot of evidence that the Bush administration was very friendly with oil interests, as well as the arms industry.

Reality check. The US isn't in very good shape right now.

I'm well aware that the US isn't in very good shape right now. This doesn't change the fact that certain groups in the US benefitted greatly from the "War on Terror".

Take it as it ACTUALLY is. A terrorist attack.

I've never said that it wasn't a terrorist attack. The question remains as to who the terrorists were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 215

When Governor Ventura did that program on 911, he attempted to enter a warehouse located in LaGuarda Airport which contained some of the debris. He was not allowed to enter but they could see some of the beams in a small window on the door.I believe if he did get in he wanted to get samples.

I think that all of the above arguments on what and what was not in the debris is meaningless because the government controlled them. Worse, I remember that a Mafia ontrolled junk yard in Staten Island was given the job of choping up the beams and getting rid of them. One thing about the Mafia is that they are good at keeping secrets.

The only way to resolve this issue on the content of the debris would be an independent group of scientists who would have the power to choose what debris they wanted to test. There would be no locked warehouses in such an investigation.

Like the millions of documents which as are still secret the Kennedy Assassinaition, we will never learn the real truth about the conent of these debris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Missile Punch

As someone in the pilot episode of X-files spinoff "The Lone Gunmen" said:

"There you go, blaming the entire government as usual. A faction, a small faction..."

So yeah, I don't blame the "US government" per se, it's just a small faction within it. Unfortunately, that faction was pretty much at the top of the hierarchy on 9/11.

I've never been into the X files. Agent Mulder really irritates me. Anyway, it is a relief to hear somebody not instantly accuse the US government of killing innocent US citizens. You and I may not believe in the same thing, but that's a start.

Alright, how about we step down the rhetoric and analyze what you just said; you seem to think that I'm arrogant and that my -claims- are groundless. How about we focus on the claim; my implied claim is that the government could have prevented 9/11. I stand by that claim. There's a fair amount of evidence that supports this claim. You may be interested in seeing this particular article regarding Able Danger, for a start:

http://alexconstanti...ruth-about.html

Again, we have common ground here. I wouldn't argue with your statement that the government could have done more to prevent 9/11. On the other hand though, we must all realize that we are not gods, although I'm sure there are many who think otherwise. We are humans with a broad capacity for error. But I still won't join in with the crowd who believes that they set the whole thing up.

Implying that I'm a "nutjob conspiracy theorist". The administration here apparently allows people to call each other nutjobs, though it doesn't approve, so I'll just say that much. Look, if all you'll do is glance at the evidence I present and call it "bits and pieces", you'll never get anywhere. I'll just keep on presenting the same pieces of evidence and you'll keep on refusing to connect the dots. If you're a serious 9/11 researcher, you'll look at the evidence and point out where you think it's mistaken, not just dismiss it.

I apologize. Just a few comments you've made got under my skin. I will try to be more mature. Although I must argue that the whole bit on refusing to connect the dots is a luxury that people on both sides of the argument can afford.

Again, the government is a very large entity. The left foot frequently doesn't know what the right foot is doing. But there's certainly a lot of evidence that the Bush administration was very friendly with oil interests, as well as the arms industry.

Greed is in human nature. And I believe that greed goes hand in hand with power. Having said that, I find it extremely difficult to believe even the most corrupt government official(s) would intentionally destroy the lives of nearly 3,000 innocents (and in turn pose the risk of being found out by 312,250,000 angry Americans) just to fill the lining of their expensive pockets. Again, I am in no way implying that the government is not corrupt. I just do not think that they orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

I'm well aware that the US isn't in very good shape right now. This doesn't change the fact that certain groups in the US benefitted greatly from the "War on Terror".

Perhaps. But I wouldn't know about it. I do know that we're dangerously close to entering another recession (or so they say) without ever really reviving from the first. People tend to seal their wallets in a steel vault in these times. If anybody is gaining anything, where is it coming from?

I've never said that it wasn't a terrorist attack. The question remains as to who the terrorists were.

If it WEREN'T Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, you'd think that they'd go to no end to clear their name (for this instance) and in doing so turn the American people against their own government, more so than they already have. The greatest thing they could have done for themselves would have been to offer something that would truly undermine the United States Government.

Edited by Missile Punch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MadMike740

I think it's hilarious when all these "truthers" claim 9/11 was an inside job and you say provide some evidence and they always say, "do your own research the evidence is there."

LOL...there isn't one shred of evidence because it wasn't an "inside job." They can never come up with 1 single shred but yet they cry this garbage.

You have all these terrorists like KSM, Osama, Ramsey bin Al Shib who all ADMITTED they were involved but yet these whack jobs still say "Inside Job"...they're CIA they say...LOL!!!

Edited by MadMike740

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I think it's hilarious when all these "truthers" claim 9/11 was an inside job and you say provide some evidence and they always say, "do your own research the evidence is there."

LOL...there isn't one shred of evidence because it wasn't an "inside job." They can never come up with 1 single shred but yet they cry this garbage.

can you explain the presence of nanothermite in the wtc dust discovered by foresnic analysis by eminent scientists.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

A link to a conspiracy theory website is NOT "PROOF!"

See what I mean...LOL!!!

i don't see what you mean. could you elaborate what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

can you explain the presence of nanothermite in the wtc dust discovered by foresnic analysis by eminent scientists.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

I've been thinking a bit about this analysis over the last few days and I don't have an answer. What I do have are some questions, some brainstorming, and some thoughts. Keep in mind that I'm a layman. I don't work in any scientific field and I don't claim to have any deep knowledge of chemistry.

First let's establish that because one of the dust samples collected was collected before the collapse of WTC 7 we can conclude only that these particles were definitely in the dust from the collapse of the two towers. We cannot definitively conclude that it was also present in the dust from the collapse of WTC 7. We can't rule out the possibility that it was present in dust from WTC 7, but there is no way to conclusively show that it in fact was (that I'm aware of anyway). Keeping that in mind, it is entirely possible that this material was only present after the collapse of towers 1 and 2. With that perspective in mind, even if it turns out to be some kind of military grade nanothermite (which I doubt it is anyway) there is no way that I see this being tied to any kind of controlled demolition of WTC 7 beyond a level of conjecture and assumption.

But let's talk about the material itself for a bit.

When you consider that F. R. Greening's paper describes the plausible and likely situation where thermitic reactions would have been present in the impact zones of towers 1 and 2, is it really that far fetched to conclude the possibility that some of those materials could have combined in some form without fully reacting? Indeed, could some of the resulting iron rich speres produced in those thermitic reactions been subsequently coated in molten aluminum, mixed with the other materials present and subsequently crushed and or vaporized together from the mass of energy produced by the collapsing structures themselves? And then consider that because the dust wasn't analyzed until years later, is it possible that the iron oxide present in the chips was naturally oxidated over time? Perhaps it isn't iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3) at all, but iron(II,III) oxide, magnetite (Fe3O4)?

After all, he seems to be assuming that it is iron(III) oxide only in the MEK treated chip, after it had been treated. Prior to treatment none of the other XEDS seem to indicate this 2:3 ratio, unless I'm misinterpreting his graphs. Look at Figure 7 for example:

post-105506-0-89934800-1316540888_thumb.

The 4 samples initially show wide variations in the ratio between Fe and O. Doesn't this give the appearance of normal oxidation variations? To a layman attempting to interpret the data in his paper to the best of my ability, that is the impression I get.

Is it possible that there were chemical reactions taking place while the chips were in the MEK solution which distorted the results of XED which seemed to indicate a 2:3 ratio? MEK, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone, has a molecular formula of C4H8O. Is it possible that in the process of desolving, the carbon and oxygen could have bonded chemically with other portions of the sample thus changing it?

But even assuming that it is iron(III) oxide, were there not a multitude of conditions in the collapse itself that could and did contribute the the merging of materials even on a nanoscale? We are talking about the destruction of huge buildings, crushing the components with extremely high energy and heat over a vast area. A mechanism for something like this is described in the R.J. Lee Company's 2003 study of the dust as follows.

Page 25:

3.0 Other WTC Dust Characteristics: Coatings

The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event.

Further on the same page they even describe just how small these layers could potentially be.

The coatings vary in thickness from nanometers (monolayer) to finely dispersed submicron particles.

Granted, the melting points of Aluminum and Iron are considably high and I'd assume that it would require a lot of energy to vaporize these. But if we return briefly to Greening's paper he mentions:

It may be calculated that the energy released by the chemical conversion of the molten aluminum produced in the Twin Towers was about 1012 Joules or comparable to the potential energy released by the collapse of the Towers!

It seems to me that it would be irresponsible to assume that there was no possible way for these flakes to have come into existence aside from manufacture based on the inconsistent nature of the flakes themselves. Just looking at the XEDS in Harrit's Figure 7 show signs of some kind of natural variation which I wouldn't expect in a material that was supposedly manufactured intentionally on a nanoscale.

I'm no chemist and make no claim that this is possible, likely, or the ultimate answer. In fact, I could be completely wrong in all of my assumptions here. I'm merely asking questions about conditions which may possibly have produced these tiny red/gray flakes. Maybe someone else more familiar with the processes involved could provide a more likely scenario.

Regardless of the plausibility of this scenario or perhaps other scenarios that others might be able to think of who are more familiar with chemistry than I am, there remains the fact that until this material is tested under conditions under which only manufactured thermite should perform, Harrit's results so far will remain inconclusive in answering the question.

That's my current perspective at any rate.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
H.H. Holmes

Very good questions, boon.

I wish we had an actual chemist or someone with sufficient knowledge to analyse these different hypothesis as to how this material came into existence, aside from those experts already discussed. There seems to be good points on both sides about the existence/nonexistence of thermitic materials in the dust. There really should be a third-party who could try to replicate the results that were reported in the original paper.

Edited by H.H. Holmes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie

I don't know how you could know that without applying the same amount of weight to the upper floors as was applied to the lower floors! I don't see how you can compare weakness whilst ignoring weight? Or have you already covered that, apologies if so!

I haven't covered it, I'm not comparing the weakness or ignoring the weight.

I was pointing out the absurd argument that the heat weakened the lower structure, while the person ignores that the heat would also weaken the upper portions too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

I haven't covered it, I'm not comparing the weakness or ignoring the weight.

I was pointing out the absurd argument that the heat weakened the lower structure, while the person ignores that the heat would also weaken the upper portions too.

I don't see how that is being ignored, meaning - what relevance does the upper section being weakened have in your stand point? i'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here?....I assumed when reading your initial point that you was implying the collapse should have been different because the upper section was weakened too! Equal weakness on the structure through heat won't have the same effect on all areas though, because the further down the building you go the more weight you have adding to the strain. If that wasn't your point can you clarify what was?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie
The evidence for actual live thermite is tenuous at this stage Stundie.
I agree to a certain point, however the argument for thermite causing lots of the unexplained phenomenon i.e. molten steel, razor thin steel etc etc is a better fit than a office fire.

RJ Lee reports that the "mysterious iron spheres" wouldn't have come from an office fire.

WPI report that a "eutectic reaction" that happened which they said was a mystery, wouldn't come from an office fire, otherwise, it wouldn't be a mystery.

So while the actual evidence for thermite is tenuous, the actual evidence it was caused by office fires appears to be none existent.

The samples haven't yet been appropriately tested to confirm the validity of this claim. But I encourage you to suggest that Niels Harritt, Steven Jones and any other interested parties perform the tests which could confirm this. Or at the very least, request that an independent lab perform the testing with some of the samples.
I agree that more testing needs doing...but evidently, its appears that Thermite is a better fit than some office fires. I'm sure there wouldn't be any mystery if the authors of the RJ Lee and WPI reports thought they were natural occurrences in office fires.
It is quite clear that materials have been found in the dust that would be consistent with thermitic materials, but each of these materials were abundantly present between the towers' construction, materials inside the towers, and the planes which struck the buildings.
The materials for thermite are in abundant but there is no reasonable suggestion or evidence of how these separate materials mixed together to cause the eutectic reaction or strange findings in the dust.

I'm sure the authors of both the reports considered the materials inside the towers and the planes.

There are many possible causes for that squib.
Like what exactly??
You are jumping to the conclusion that it was caused by explosives but there is no reason to make this assumption.
Except for the object that flies out of the window. :w00t:
It could have been a partial ceiling or wall collapse for example. We simply don't know what the exact cause of that particular squib is.
I agree that we do not know the exact cause, it could be the ceiling or a wall which is just an assumption, like explosives. Any of them are possible, however I have reason to doubt they were walls or ceilings, but I can't prove it one way or the other.
But if we are to assume, as you would apparently have us believe, that it is caused by explosives, one might wonder why it is isolated like this.
Couldn't it be a single isolated explosive device. You know like the ones you see in demolitions, except instead of it being a sequence or all of them being set off, it's just the one?
Why weren't there more in the same general area at the same general time?
Because if it was an explosive of some kind, then only the one was detonated.

Besides, I would have thought if it was a ceiling or wall that had collapsed, that we would see more in the same general area considering that the spans went from external to internal columns.

What time exactly is this footage taken from and how long before the tower collapse precisely?
Not sure, I only used this point out the claim that there were no explosions before the collapse, when the possibility there is one there.
I didn't see skyeagle mention anything about fires weakening "all 90 odd floors below it." Why are you putting words in his mouth? Is it just that you are building a strawman here so that you can make your rebuttal falsely appear more convincing?
I wouldn't call it a strawman, I call taking his point to the extreme and pointing out a flaw because if you believe the official story, then you have 17 odd floors colliding against 90 odd floors. If fire weakened the structure below, it would have weakened the structure below too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie
I don't see how that is being ignored, meaning - what relevance does the upper section being weakened have in your stand point?
If the upper portions are weakened, then it wouldn't have as much of an impact as a portion which isn't weakened would it??

In other words, less likely to crush down, pile drive, pancake down as the official story would have us believe.

i'm really not sure what point you are trying to make here?....I assumed when reading your initial point that you was implying the collapse should have been different because the upper section was weakened too!
The collapse in my opinion should have been different but that was not the point I was making. The point is just because the building fails at the point of initiation, doesn't automatically mean they will collapse.

There are hundreds of buildings, structure and the like which fail at certain floors or levels but don't collapse in their entirety. I know none of them were never hit by a plane, but neither was WTC7.

Equal weakness on the structure through heat won't have the same effect on all areas though, because the further down the building you go the more weight you have adding to the strain.
I'm not suggest that there was equal weakness through heat.

The further down the building you go, I agree there is more weight, but there is also more strength. If the building fails at a certain point in a column or beam, then the strain is transferred through the load paths of the entire structure.

If that wasn't your point can you clarify what was?

My point was that Skyeagles argument didn't have much merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

When you consider that F. R. Greening's paper describes the plausible and likely situation where thermitic reactions would have been present in the impact zones of towers 1 and 2, is it really that far fetched to conclude the possibility that some of those materials could have combined in some form without fully reacting? Indeed, could some of the resulting iron rich speres produced in those thermitic reactions been subsequently coated in molten aluminum, mixed with the other materials present and subsequently crushed and or vaporized together from the mass of energy produced by the collapsing structures themselves? And then consider that because the dust wasn't analyzed until years later, is it possible that the iron oxide present in the chips was naturally oxidated over time? Perhaps it isn't iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3) at all, but iron(II,III) oxide, magnetite (Fe3O4)?

After all, he seems to be assuming that it is iron(III) oxide only in the MEK treated chip, after it had been treated. Prior to treatment none of the other XEDS seem to indicate this 2:3 ratio, unless I'm misinterpreting his graphs. Look at Figure 7 for example:

looking at figure 7 does not help in this respect because the nano aluminium platelets themselves have an oxide layer on the surface - as stated before any aluminium exposed to air will form an oxide layer within picoseconds (instantly). so in figure 7 you are looking at the oxygen from the aluminium-oxde as well as the iron-oxide (and possibly silicon dioxide too).

the chips have a carbon based matrix with the ingredients in the pores of the matrix - imagine a sponge soaked in water, the sponge would be the carbon, the pores would be iron-oxide, aluminium, etc. the soaking in MEK test will dissolve the carbon matrix, clumping the iron, silicon, aluminium material out of the uniformity state they were being held in by the carbon matrix.

so, you need to look at figure 18, this is the scan of a region of the chip with high iron density clumping after soaking in MEK (after the carbon-sponge is dissolved).

from the paper

"in Fig. (18) an abundance of oxygen is found relative to iron. Based on quantification of the XEDS spectra, and after accounting for oxygen fractions to trace elements, it is found that the Fe:O ratio for the spectrum in Fig. (18) is approximately 2:3. This indicates that the iron is oxidized and apparently in oxidation state III, indicating that Fe2O3, or perhaps an iron (III) oxo-bridged polymer, is present To check the quantification method, tests were performed with the known chemical, iron (III) oxide, and the elementalquantification was found to yield consistent and repeatable results for iron and oxygen. In particular we made eight 50-second measurements on Fe2O3 samples and found consistency for iron (± 6.2%, 1 sigma) and for oxygen (± 3.4%, 1 sigma) with the O/Fe ratio consistently near 1.5 as expected"

..so it is Fe203 iron oxide in the red part of the chip.

vapourising aluminium requires 2500 Celcius

any condensing in air from a vapour state would would result in aluminium-oxide, not elemental aluminium (as found in the chips), as stated previosuly aluminium oxidizes in picoseconds when exposed to air.

so your above fanciful hypothesis is falsified by empirical measurements on three independent counts, ie impossible.

The 4 samples initially show wide variations in the ratio between Fe and O. Doesn't this give the appearance of normal oxidation variations? To a layman attempting to interpret the data in his paper to the best of my ability, that is the impression I get.

the aluminium also has an oxide layer on the surface. that is why the MEK test is important to look at the compounds seperately.

Is it possible that there were chemical reactions taking place while the chips were in the MEK solution which distorted the results of XED which seemed to indicate a 2:3 ratio? MEK, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone, has a molecular formula of C4H8O. Is it possible that in the process of desolving, the carbon and oxygen could have bonded chemically with other portions of the sample thus changing it?
at room temperature? it's just a solvent.
But even assuming that it is iron(III) oxide, were there not a multitude of conditions in the collapse itself that could and did contribute the the merging of materials even on a nanoscale? We are talking about the destruction of huge buildings, crushing the components with extremely high energy and heat over a vast area. A mechanism for something like this is described in the R.J. Lee Company's 2003 study of the dust as follows

any condensing in air from a vapour state would result in aluminium-oxide, not elemental aluminium (as found in the chips), as stated previosuly aluminium oxidizes in picoseconds when exposed to air.

are you satisifed with my response?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TSS

If the upper portions are weakened, then it wouldn't have as much of an impact as a portion which isn't weakened would it??

In other words, less likely to crush down, pile drive, pancake down as the official story would have us believe.

If the mass hasn't altered then I don't know tbh.

Take two 100 storey buildings, lets' say our impact point is at the 75th floor on each building, one building has the section above the impact point weakened, the other has the section above the impact point being structurally sound - both buildings have their lower floors weakened through fire, at the same rate. Both structures give way at the impact point of the 75th floor. Is there a way of calculating whether the impact and damage from the falls should be different in relation the structural integrity of the mass above?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

--

are you satisifed with my response?

No, I'm not satisfied with your response.

And I'm curious if you will ever respond to this question:

Out of interest, are you an engineer, or working/educated in a scientific field?

So, are you?

I'm not an engineer. I'm not working or educated in a scientific field (unless you count computer science, which I hardly think applies to this discussion in any way). How about you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

No, I'm not satisfied with your response.

why are you not satisifed with the response? Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

why are you not satisifed with the response?

Why should I be?

I don't see you actually addressing the issues raised by my questions. I see that you appear to be off-handedly dismissing certain points and ignoring others. Is that because what I've conveyed is just incompetence, oh sorry, I mean a fanciful hypothesis? Or is it for some other reason?

Seriously Little Fish, if all you want to have happen here is blind acceptance of the findings assumed in Harrit's paper, you aren't going to get it. Not from me anyway. I doubt the results, I doubt the methodology, I doubt the accuracy, and I completely doubt the conclusions which have been drawn. Why do I doubt these things? Because the paper is inconclusive, incomplete, and potentially flawed.

What kind of peer reviewed paper has an accolade of silence anyway? I seem to recall Neils Harrit bragging something about the lack of any response in four years is the best confirmation of his paper's validity? I'm completely paraphrasing that and I don't recall exactly where he made the statement. If needed, I'm sure I can track it down with some time and effort.

But the question that crosses my mind in that statement is whether the lack of response is an indicator of indifference for a journal that hasn't been actively or tenaciously reviewed. Isn't there another Bentham journal that had some gibberish paper survive peer review to the point that it was ready to be published until the hoaxer of that mock paper pulled the plug? I'm not saying that the hoax perpetrated by Philip Davis proves any definite problem with the peer review process of The Open Chemical Physics Journal which published Harrit's paper is in any way corollary, but at the same time I can't rule out any connections either. Who exactly peer reviewed Harrit's paper before it was published anyway? Is there any way to track that down?

And before you copy/paste the rebuttal for this, I've read it here. I'm fully aware that this mistake from the hoax by Philip Davis isn't a definitive indicator that there is a systemic problem with Bentham, but I also don't think it should be ignored and that it is important to be aware of such things when trying to gage the legitimacy of papers like Harrit's; especially when he seems to have claimed to have had no response at all from its publication. I mean really, no response? Or at best, virtually no response? Surely interested chemical engineers would find such material compelling enough to at least discuss it with him right? But no response at all? Sounds more like disinterest than anything else to me...

And when peer review happens, is there never any feedback at all in support aside from a green light for publication? Honest question by the way. I have very little knowledge of the peer review process, though I'd expect it to be intensive for any publication with a high standard and active participation.

Even if it was actually adequately peer reviewed, my interpretation of the paper is that it raises more questions than answers. And it certainly doesn't conclusively prove that there are traces of manufactured thermitic materials in the dust when one considers the countless variables present in the collapse of the twin towers and the differences in the samples themselves.

All of that coupled with the clear and undeniable fact that the collapse of the towers was initiated around the impact zones, therefore indicating that it was caused by the damage of the planes which flew into them and the ensuing natural results of those impacts, what are we left with? In my opinion we are left with the same conclusions that have prevailed for over a decade now. The planes caused the inevitable collapse of the towers. Anomalous material found in the dust is probably simply that; anomalous.

Despite that, I'll look forward to more conclusive testing of these chips. Preferably testing which is more focused on determining the posited hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Or is it for some other reason?
you posted a lot so I replied to the essence of your hypothesis, there didn't seem to be a need to go through it point by point, since falsifiying an incorrect assumption falsifies everything else that relies on it. I asked if you were satisifed as I was not sure whether I had addressed all your points.

I was not mocking you, it is a fanciful hypothesis given all the unlikely factors that rely on each other, but anyway it's not possible for the reasons I gave, unless you want to give a reason why my reasons are wrong.

I doubt the results, I doubt the methodology, I doubt the accuracy, and I completely doubt the conclusions which have been drawn. Why do I doubt these things? Because the paper is inconclusive, incomplete, and potentially flawed.

the conclusions drawn are valid, I have not seen an argument that shows any of the drawn conclusions to be invalid.

nearly all papers are incomplete in that they call for further research.

I disagree that Harrit's paper is potentially flawed for the reasons given some days ago, you said it should have been done in a vaccum to show it is thermitic, this is not a flaw as it has been shown to be thermitic by a different method.

But the question that crosses my mind in that statement is whether the lack of response is an indicator of indifference for a journal that hasn't been actively or tenaciously reviewed.

the paper has been widely discussed and attacked on the internet for 2 years, members of congress and even NIST are aware of it, yet there has been no published response, if there was a flaw then a response surely would have been submitted to the journal. the top people at NIST are nanothermite experts in the field and they are charged with investigations of the collapse. they have the resources and expertise, and an interest in this matter, so if there is a flaw they surely would have published by now. Harrit does have a point, silence is good news for his paper.

Isn't there another Bentham journal that had some gibberish paper survive peer review to the point that it was ready to be published until the hoaxer of that mock paper pulled the plug?
no I don't think that is correct. The Bentham journals are open journals that require payment before peer review. it is a case of a secretary asking for payment prior to passing on the gibberish submission to a reviewer, then the hoaxer refuses payment and withdraws it. it was never looked at (unless you have information I don't), but often used to unfairly discredit bentham journals. I wonder why anyone would want to discredit bentham journals, hmm.
Who exactly peer reviewed Harrit's paper before it was published anyway? Is there any way to track that down?
It is usual for the peer review process to be anonymous. I don't know who peer reviewed it.

your link requires a login, I don't know what point it makes.

Sounds more like disinterest than anything else to me...
it has controversial findings (to say the least!) it has been widely discussed (and vigourously attacked!) for the last 2 years. I don't see "disinterst" as a reason for a non response.
And when peer review happens, is there never any feedback at all in support aside from a green light for publication? Honest question by the way. I have very little knowledge of the peer review process, though I'd expect it to be intensive for any publication with a high standard and active participation.
if there is any disagreement, it can be submitted to the journal as a letter to the editor and this letter would itself be peer reviewed before publication, Harrit would then get an opportunity to respond, so letter and response to the letter would be published alongside the original paper, or it could be published in a different journal as a paper. the lack of response at the journal level suggests it is robust.
Even if it was actually adequately peer reviewed, my interpretation of the paper is that it raises more questions than answers. And it certainly doesn't conclusively prove that there are traces of manufactured thermitic materials in the dust when one considers the countless variables present in the collapse of the twin towers and the differences in the samples themselves.
then someone would have to propose a mechanism of how iron oxide and elemental aluminium in a carbon matrix come together uniformly at the nanoscale to organise itself into unreacted thermite in chaotic conditions violating laws of entropy. as an analogy, can you propose a mechanism of creating Nitroglycerin in random, chaotic and energtic conditions?
All of that coupled with the clear and undeniable fact that the collapse of the towers was initiated around the impact zones, therefore indicating that it was caused by the damage of the planes which flew into them and the ensuing natural results of those impacts, what are we left with? In my opinion we are left with the same conclusions that have prevailed for over a decade now. The planes caused the inevitable collapse of the towers. Anomalous material found in the dust is probably simply that; anomalous.

it is not a requirement for this thermite to have been the sole cause of collapse and likely was not the sole cause, that is not what the paper suggests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

Apologies Little Fish, I mean no offense by this.

If you are unwilling to answer a very simple and direct question about your own personal qualifications about this subject I simply can't take your statements as adequate refutation of the possible questions I've raised. Given that you have chosen for whatever reason to ignore the obvious question about your qualifications, why should I take your response seriously in refutation of my brainstorming as anything substantial? Despite the fact that I've openly stated that I lack the scientific qualifications to definitively analyze this paper, I've at least been open and honest about that lack of qualification. Why are you being ambiguous by ignoring this direct question? Are you just as scientifically uneducated as I am but unwilling to admit so? Or are you a prominent member of the truth movement that is afraid to divulge his or her true identity? I don't get it.

Even though I don't hold any kind of scientific degree, I do have common sense and a higher than average intelligence. I'm no genius, but I'm no mental slouch either. The points I've raised to question this paper and its assumptions are legitimate. Those questions aren't going to go away. The paper is not conclusive no matter how much you might want it to be. I'm sorry, but it isn't.

And even if you were to now come forward and claim that you do indeed work in a scientific field, why would I believe it considering your marked hesitation to even respond to the simple question in the first place?

I'm sorry, and no offense intended, but you've undermined your own credibility by not only the ambiguity of your training/education but also by the downright nastiness in which you've assaulted the character, knowledge, and capacity of other people who have presented opposing views to you.

I don't know if I can take you seriously at this point. Is there some way to overcome this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

--

at room temperature? it's just a solvent.

--

Here is an example of why I doubt your capacity to honestly discuss this subject. It is also why I doubt your potential education. You claim that it is "just a solvent" and ask (presumably) whether a chemical reaction could occur "at room temperature?"

Are you serious?

Do you know what a solvent is and what it does?

When one substance is dissolved into another, a solution is formed.[1] This is opposed to the situation when the compounds are insoluble and one of them precipitate like sand in water. In solution, all of the ingredients are uniformly distributed at a molecular level and no residue remains. The mixing is referred to as miscibility, whereas the ability to dissolve one compound into another is known as solubility.
However, in addition to mixing, both substances in the solution interact with each other. When something is dissolved, molecules of the solvent arrange themselves around molecules of the solute.

It is designed to chemically interact with the solute. In the case of these red/gray chips, just how many chemicals are we talking about? I haven't counted, but it is more than just aluminum and iron. How did the supposedly small volume chemicals interact with the solution and then interact with the solute after being agitated for days? Do you know? I sure don't, but I suggest that this ambiguity raises questions about the assumptions presented in Harrit's analysis.

And I wonder why it doesn't raise questions in your mind. It should, you know. Especially if what you are actually after is the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Is it possible that there were chemical reactions taking place while the chips were in the MEK solution which distorted the results of XED which seemed to indicate a 2:3 ratio? MEK, or Methyl Ethyl Ketone, has a molecular formula of C4H8O. Is it possible that in the process of desolving, the carbon and oxygen could have bonded chemically with other portions of the sample thus changing it?

"Methyl ethyl ketone can be stored in iron, steel or aluminium containers."

http://www.cedre.fr/en/publication/chemical/mek.pdf

so MEK is not going to react with steel, aluminium or iron.

if you think the resultant solution of MEK and the dissolved carbon matrix reacted with different Iron Oxides at room temperature then you need to propose a plausible mechanism. For argument sake assume you are right that MEK has altered the iron oxide - you speculated that the iron compound in the red chips may have been an oxide of iron different to Fe2o3, and that the MEK soaking stripped it to Fe2O3. How then do you propose that the chips (that were NOT soaked in MEK) produce molten elemental iron when heated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubs49

**EDIT**

**If you see a post you believe to be in violation of the forum rules, please use the REPORT function to bring it to the attention of the moderators.**

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.