Jump to content
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

771 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

I never claimed that anyone would do that. In fact, I haven't seen -anyone- claim that that's how it went down. As to how, exactly, it could have been done, I'm not sure. But I think the following article gives some good ideas as to how it could have happened:

http://911review.com..._access_p1.html

That article is a guy who is daydreaming. And once again, the buildings failed where the aircraft impacts occurred, and, there is no evidence of any chemical explosions anywhere in the videos.

Since there was no evidence of explosives, that article is moot.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

While you are failing to adequately respond to the link provided earlier, here is another one to chew on.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

Cheers...

Edit:

I haven't read this in full, but feel free to let us know if it is valid.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/

Edited by booNyzarC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

While you are failing to adequately respond to the link provided earlier, here is another one to chew on.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4607894&postcount=1694

Cheers...

Edit:

I haven't read this in full, but feel free to let us know if it is valid.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/more-bad-science-surrounding-the-nano-thermite-red-herring/

you state I am "failing to adequately respond", but it is you that has not acknowledged or responded to post#175.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=165&p=4068000entry4068000

did you watch the video i just posted in post#175?

did you pause the video at 2:44?

do you accept now that the material is not the primer paint?

do you accept there is no zinc in the red chips?

if the answer is "no" to any of the above, then please state your reasons.

I am sure that you agree the evidence shows the red chips not to be primer paint. admitting it in public is another matter.

cheers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

you state I am "failing to adequately respond", but it is you that has not acknowledged or responded to post#175.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=165&p=4068000entry4068000

did you watch the video i just posted in post#175?

did you pause the video at 2:44?

do you accept now that the material is not the primer paint?

do you accept there is no zinc in the red chips?

if the answer is "no" to any of the above, then please state your reasons.

I am sure that you agree the evidence shows the red chips not to be primer paint. admitting it in public is another matter.

cheers...

Why do you suppose his image of the paint looks strikingly similar to Harrit's Figure 14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
So the primer can "flake off" and can "break up in irregular patterns" when heated above 250°C (and presumably below the 420°C ignition point). That could be one source for the "chips".
read the caption under the NIST picture. it states the primer paint has been subjected to temperatures greater than 650C, and yet the primer paint is still there in the picture! - do you see that the primer paint in the picture has not ignited?

We KNOW the thermitic chips ignite at 420C.

We KNOW the wtc primer paint can survive temperatures above 650C.

This MEANS the thermitic chips are not wtc primer paint.

x_primer_003.jpg

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
So there actually was zinc in Harrit's "red chips".

fig 14 is the surface of the chip prior to MEK soaking, it is not a composition of what is IN the red chip.

did you read post#175?

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=165&p=4068000entry4068000

did you pause the video at 2:44?

do you accept there is no zinc IN Harrit's red chips?

do you accept this MEANS the red chips are not primer paint?

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

read the caption under the NIST picture. it states the primer paint has been subjected to temperatures greater than 650C, and yet the primer paint is still there in the picture! - do you see that the primer paint in the picture has not ignited?

We KNOW the thermitic chips ignite at 420C.

We KNOW the wtc primer paint can survive temperatures above 650C.

This MEANS the thermitic chips are not wtc primer paint.

x_primer_003.jpg

But it does NOT prove that the material tested was Thermite.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Why do you suppose his image of the paint looks strikingly similar to Harrit's Figure 14?

fig 14 is an XEDS spectrum grpah of a chip, "his image" is a NIST photograph of primer paint, can you clarify the confusion?

what about the questions?

did you watch the video i just posted in post#175?

did you pause the video at 2:44?

do you accept now that the material is not the primer paint?

do you accept there is no zinc in the red chips?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive

I would think that they would probably have peer reviewed each others' work.

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard all week! Good grief, just listen to yourself. So, what part of independent lab and peer review are we having a problem with? Sorry but what your describing is not independent peer review.

It's also been in the news in Europe:

Europe...... I'll have to watch this and come back to comment.

It's also been commented it on quite a bit in online forums. You may scoff at that type of review, but the fact of the matter is that an article that can withstand a fair amount of debate in online forums can certainly lend such an article credibility; believe it or not, people in online forums can know about technical things too.

Yes, I scoff at non-independent lab and peer reviews for obvious reasons. Oh, the obvious reason is no ojectivity and no impartiality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

Now THAT is the funniest thing I've heard all week! Good grief, just listen to yourself. So, what part of independent lab and peer review are we having a problem with? Sorry but what your describing is not independent peer review.

Alright, fine. Nevertheless, they are certainly peers and its quite possible that they reviewed each others' work.

Europe...... I'll have to watch this and come back to comment.

Please do.

Yes, I scoff at non-independent lab and peer reviews for obvious reasons. Oh, the obvious reason is no objectivity and no impartiality.

Logic doesn't need independent labs. It just needs people who are willing to look for the truth no matter where it lies. The paper certainly have people who are qualified to write about the subject at hand. And many other people have understood the logic in it as well. Take Little Fish, for example; he's doing a great job of defending its findings in this very thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Alright, fine. Nevertheless, they are certainly peers and its quite possible that they reviewed each others' work.

scott, the paper WAS peer reviewed anonymously by unassociated reviewers.

one of the reviewers has since declared himself as a reviewer, his name is professor David Griscom. please read these links.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-12-02/peer-reviewer-active-thermitic-materials-paper-identifies-himself-great

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2010/09/911-truth-evidence-of-energetic.html

"II. The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”

Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review.

Absolutely false!

I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions.

Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!

......"

read the rest in the above link.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

fig 14 is the surface of the chip prior to MEK soaking, it is not a composition of what is IN the red chip.

Please note the use of the phrase "could be attributed to surface contamination" in the caption for fig. 14. It could just as easily be a component of the material itself.

MEK is a solvent, similar to acetone, and one of its uses is as a paint remover. Is it not possible that the MEK soak may have removed a sufficient amount of the pigment - of which it has been shown was approximately 20% Zinc Chromate - but left enough of the actual paint substrate to explain why it is not showing up in significant quantities in the other figures....?

Yes.

did you pause the video at 2:44?

Yes.

do you accept there is no zinc IN Harrit's red chips?

I accept that his figures show no significant "spikes" where Zinc and Chromium were shown in fig. 14, but I do not necessarily accept that that result is due to what he admits "could have been" simply surface contamination.

do you accept this MEANS the red chips are not primer paint?

No, because I don't believe he did sufficient testing to completely eliminate primer paint as a possible explanation.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive

It's also been in the news in Europe:

Yeah that was an interview with one of the researchers that self-reviewed their own research paper and then paid to have posted. Unfortunately (for him) he claimed to be a scientist. Let's see, if I wanted to know something about plumbing do I ask an electrician? Now if he had said something like: "as an architect I was disturbed to see the 3rd building collapse" I might give him some credibility. He's a scientist, not an architect or structural engineer, not an explosives, demolition, or chemical expert, but a scientist, who's way overdue at the lab to get his bolts tightened.

Edited by Stardrive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mrbusdriver

From the report's Introduction

"In a paper presented first online in autumn 2006 regarding

anomalies observed in the World Trade Center destruction

[6], a general request was issued for samples of the

WTC dust. The expectation at that time was that a careful

examination of the dust might yield evidence to support the

hypothesis that explosive materials other than jet fuel caused

the extraordinarily rapid and essentially total destruction of

the WTC buildings.

It was learned that a number of people had saved samples

of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across

Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their

samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses

four separate dust samples collected on or shortly

after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray

chips. All four samples were originally collected by private

citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy.

These citizens came forward and provided samples for

analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11

dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from

the dust. A map showing the locations where the four samples

were collected is presented as Fig. (1)."

So they received samples from "several" people (how many?) and the report discusses 4 selected samples. Should we assume that the unstudied samples were unremarkable in nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

fig 14 is an XEDS spectrum grpah of a chip, "his image" is a NIST photograph of primer paint, can you clarify the confusion?

what about the questions?

did you watch the video i just posted in post#175?

did you pause the video at 2:44?

do you accept now that the material is not the primer paint?

do you accept there is no zinc in the red chips?

Come on, is it really that confusing? Would I compare a photograph with the graph in Figure 14?

By "image" I meant the image used in the presentation from the posted video.

I'm talking about the XEDS graph that you see at 2:44, which is supposedly the paint. Why do you suppose it looks strikingly similar to Harrit's Figure 14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
MEK is a solvent, similar to acetone, and one of its uses is as a paint remover. Is it not possible that the MEK soak may have removed a sufficient amount of the pigment - of which it has been shown was approximately 20% Zinc Chromate - but left enough of the actual paint substrate to explain why it is not showing up in significant quantities in the other figures....?

the "other figures" that show NO chromium and NO zinc were chips that were NOT soaked in MEK. the scans were done on freshly broken surfaces (so to avoid confusion with surface contamination).

the most you can say is that the MEK soaked chip was not a thermitic chip but a primer paint chip. but there are other observations that rule this out - one observation is that the primer paint soaked in MEK turned soft, the chip soaked in MEK described in the paper remained hard. watch the video in post#175 for a few minutes after 2:44

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stardrive

scott, the paper WAS peer reviewed anonymously by unassociated reviewers.

The red flag keyword here is "anonymously". In other words it was never subjected to open and independent peer review. It was independently reviewed "anonymously" behind closed doors, YEAH RIGHT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

scott, the paper WAS peer reviewed anonymously by unassociated reviewers.

one of the reviewers has since declared himself as a reviewer, his name is professor David Griscom. please read these links.

* snipped for brevity *

I think its great that he has come forward and identified himself, although I don't see how a scientist who has spent the bulk of his career studying glass (essentially) would have a lot of experience on the subject of thermite. He says he submitted "12 single spaced pages of recommendations", but for all we know, those could have been spelling corrections or other recommendations that have little or nothing to do with the actual research or results.

To me, this just goes to highlight Bentham's shoddy peer review process.

I'm not trying to denigrate Dr. Griscom or his career and achievements at all, but from the looks of things, he is only a "peer" in the sense that he is also a "scientist".

Cz

EDITED for typos...

Edited by Czero 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

the "other figures" that show NO chromium and NO zinc were chips that were NOT soaked in MEK. the scans were done on freshly broken surfaces (so to avoid confusion with surface contamination).

Really...?

From the article...

Fig. (16). XEDS spectrum from a silicon-rich region on the porous red matrix of the MEK-treated red material.
Fig. (17). XEDS spectrum obtained at 10 kV from a probe of the region of high aluminum concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip.
Fig. (18). XEDS spectrum obtained from a probe of the region of high iron concentration on the MEK-soaked red chip, acquired with a 15 kV beam.

Its quite clear that in your post #175, point 5, Harrit is discussing the findings in the MEK-soak sample, and references figures 16, 17 and 18 specifically.

the most you can say is that the MEK soaked chip was not a thermitic chip but a primer paint chip. but there are other observations that rule this out - one observation is that the primer paint soaked in MEK turned soft, the chip soaked in MEK described in the paper remained hard. watch the video in post#175 for a few minutes after 2:44

Was the sample primer chip from the same batch as was used on WTC? No way of knowing, I suppose. Was it even from WTC? I don't know. Do you? If so, please share...

Was the primer sample on a piece of aluminum or iron oxide as the sample "chip" was? I don't know, that either.

Was the primer sample pristine, or was it handled (or mis-handled a the case may be) in the same manner that the "chip" was handled...?

My point is that different examples of the same or very similar materials will react differently under different conditions.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Come on, is it really that confusing? Would I compare a photograph with the graph in Figure 14?

That is why I asked for clarification. I am involved in several different conversations. you try it sometime :)
By "image" I meant the image used in the presentation from the posted video.

I'm talking about the XEDS graph that you see at 2:44, which is supposedly the paint. Why do you suppose it looks strikingly similar to Harrit's Figure 14?

this has been addressed at the end of post#175

post MEK soaking reveals no zinc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

That is why I asked for clarification. I am involved in several different conversations. you try it sometime :)

No problem on the clarification, I can see how it may have been ambiguous considering my wording. I was a tad busy at the time and didn't have more than a moment to devote to the post.

this has been addressed at the end of post#175

post MEK soaking reveals no zinc.

So you are saying that if we soaked the sample from 2:44 in the video and soaked it in MEK it would result in a more similar XED analysis?

No, of course that isn't what you are saying. But I did notice that they didn't do that. Did you notice that? Why wouldn't they do that?

The point of my question regarding the similarity between the XED of the pre-soaked red/gray chip sample and the XED of the paint chip is... gee, they look pretty similar. Why do you suppose that is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
Was the sample primer chip from the same batch as was used on WTC? No way of knowing, I suppose. Was it even from WTC? I don't know. Do you? If so, please share...
the primer paint sample was scraped off a wtc monument. it is explained in the video I posted in post#175, please watch it.
My point is that different examples of the same or very similar materials will react differently under different conditions.
if the red chips and the primer paint are the same material they will have the same properties. you need to propose something substantive as to why the same material would behave differently, otherwise we'll have to throw away all the scientific literature on everything.

it has been shown that :

1. the primer paint survives temperatures greater than 650, the thermitic chips ignite at 420C

2. the primer paint reduces to ash at ~800C, the thermitic chips produce molten iron at 420C

3. the primer paint contains substantial zinc inside the chip, the thermitic chips contain no zinc inside the chip.

4. the primer paint softens when soaked in MEK, the thermitic chips remain hard in MEK.

5. the primer paint and thermitic chips are slightly different colour.

6. the primer paint remains dull after soaking in MEK, the thermitic chips are glossy after MEK soaking.

7. the primer paint does not swell when soaked in MEK, the thermitic chips swell after soaking in MEK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

I think its great that he has come forward and identified himself, although I don't see how a scientist who has spent the bulk of his career studying glass (essentially) would have a lot of experience on the subject of thermite. He says he submitted "12 single spaced pages of recommendations", but for all we know, those could have been spelling corrections or other recommendations that have little or nothing to do with the actual research or results.

To me, this just goes to highlight Bentham's shoddy peer review process.

I'm not trying to denigrate Dr. Griscom or his career and achievements at all, but from the looks of things, he is only a "peer" in the sense that he is also a "scientist".

I think you just did, he is a professor in materials science (amongst many other things)

check out his resume:

http://www.drivehq.com/folder/p1720192/03889411.aspx

or here

http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx?isGallary=true&shareID=1720192&fileID=773583208&forcedDownload=true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Czero 101

I think you just did, he is a professor in materials science (amongst many other things)

check out his resume:

http://www.drivehq.com/folder/p1720192/03889411.aspx

or here

http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx?isGallary=true&shareID=1720192&fileID=773583208&forcedDownload=true

Yes, I read his resume, which is how I knew that the bulk of his work has been in researching various subjects to do with glass and optical sciences.

I know that "materials science" is a rather broad field involving many different disciplines, and for all I know he may have experience with thermite and / or thermitic compounds, but nothing in his c.v. seems to implicitly suggest that, nor have I found anything where he claims such experience. The closest he comes is this from his blog article about Harrit's study:

twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty.

Cz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
booNyzarC

The Great Demolition Debate, Pt. 2: Niels Harrit vs. Denis Rancourt _on The Kevin Barrett Show

http://noliesradio.org/archives/25022

Although Denis Rancourt appears to be involved in the truth movement himself, he doesn't appear to be confident in the assumptions put forth in Niels Harrit's paper. I found this debate to be interesting, although at times difficult to listen to because the people involved are dealing with time delays so they sometimes talk over each other.

The first hour is primarily about natural collapse of the two towers versus demolition. Rancourt appears to support natural collapse and tries to explain his position amid multiple interruptions. I found it worth listening to. But if you'd like to skip that and jump straight to the section where they talk about the paper, it starts at about 57 minutes.

In my opinion Rancourt wins this debate hands down. For example, look at how he opens:

Rancourt:

I just want to start by giving my background; my credentials in addressing these questions.

I'm a materials scientist and I'm a world expert in nano particles. I've been a keynote speaker at conferences in these questions and in particular iron oxide particles. I'm also an expert in experimental measurement methods. I have taught graduate level courses on the techniques that are being used in this paper... including energy dispersive xray analysis, scanning electro microscopy and so on.

I have over 100 peer reviewed scientific articles in these various areas, and I have also reviewed many many scientific papers in my career, probably more than I have written.

And I have to say that if I had reviewed this paper, it would have had a really hard time getting published in the form that it presently is...

And I would have asked for many additional experiments. And I would have asked for the conclusions be removed because I don't believe the conclusions follow from the data that's being presented. So I tend to be rather critical of this paper as I see it and as I've studied it.

Later Denis asks Harrit:

Have you used these previously in other scientific work?

And Harrit responds...

Not myself personally, no.

Rancourt:

As a reviewer of this paper I would have said this person doesn't know anything about these experimental techniques...

Certainly was interesting to listen to.

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.