PrisonPlanet Forum

9/11/2001 Attacks Were An Inside Job => Faux Controversies and Case Studies => Topic started by: hal 9000 on May 08, 2009, 01:25:05 pm

Title: Congrats 911truth deniers...now the world knows 100x more about thermite
Post by: hal 9000 on May 08, 2009, 01:25:05 pm
I just came across this exchange between a 9/11 debunker and 9/11 truther on the Education Forum Political Conspiracies section.

According to the debunker,

"The structure of the microscopic structure of the chips (left) is very close to kaolinite (paint primer) (right) -

" (http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Joneschipsvskaolinute.jpg)

The debunker also claims

"The spectra are an almost perfect match as well. The kaolinite w/gypsum sceptra on top one is from the USGS the lower ones are from the Harrit-Jones paper."

(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg)

 I'm sure Jones and his colleagues couldn't have made a faux pas like this.

I would really like to see these counter claims from the debunking side debated by someone qualified to do so. Is anyone aware of a debate being scheduled to hash all these claims out? I really need to hear someone from the Jones team address these claims. I'm confident they can refute them, and am looking forward to seeing just that.












http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14193&st=120&start=120
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: thnkfstpal on May 08, 2009, 03:17:42 pm
90% of the time a "debunker" means paid disinfo agent. Why?

First off what type of person has the time to "debunk" subjects that they think are "crazy" The fact that they even want to "debunk" is more proof we are over the target.

For instance why don't we here about people debunking the extermination of the jews during WW2. Well because there is no reason to debunk things that are just crazy.

If 9/11 wasn't an inside job there would be no need for all the hoopla about debunking period, people would just ignore it out of hand.

The time for debate is over, or as Alex say's "Your ballgame is over scum"
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: Georgiacopguy on May 08, 2009, 03:24:34 pm
I just have to question the sincerity of your post.


But just for the record, as a non truther, those eletron microscope scans look nothing alike, and on the Gas Chromatograph charts, I note that the comparisons lack the chemical composition index as well as the scale index. I mean, if you are going to side a side by side comparison of data, then ALL the data points need to be there....right? Right??

 
I just came across this exchange between a 9/11 debunker and 9/11 truther on the Education Forum Political Conspiracies section.

According to the debunker,

"The structure of the microscopic structure of the chips (left) is very close to kaolinite (paint primer) (right) -

" (http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Joneschipsvskaolinute.jpg)

The debunker also claims

"The spectra are an almost perfect match as well. The kaolinite w/gypsum sceptra on top one is from the USGS the lower ones are from the Harrit-Jones paper."

(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg)

 I'm sure Jones and his colleagues couldn't have made a faux pas like this.

I would really like to see these counter claims from the debunking side debated by someone qualified to do so. Is anyone aware of a debate being scheduled to hash all these claims out? I really need to hear someone from the Jones team address these claims. I'm confident they can refute them, and am looking forward to seeing just that.












http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14193&st=120&start=120
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: gEEk squad on May 08, 2009, 03:54:08 pm
I just have to question the sincerity of your post.


But just for the record, as a non truther, those eletron microscope scans look nothing alike, and on the Gas Chromatograph charts, I note that the comparisons lack the chemical composition index as well as the scale index. I mean, if you are going to side a side by side comparison of data, then ALL the data points need to be there....right? Right??

 

Exactly. It is just like Al Gore and his 600,000 year temperature and CO2 chart. He keeps the two seperated so you can't tell that CO2 is being led by temperature. He only points out correlation, which alone can not prove causation.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: grapecrusher1 on May 08, 2009, 04:14:30 pm
The Jones and co. recentlly published peer reviewed paper is HEAVILY vetted.  It involves serious science far beyond my simple understanding.  It isnt just some whimsical manifestestion by a delusion college kid who thought paint was explosive and mistook it for some keyboard component.  It has been reviewed by the best experts on the planet  --- where is the peer reviewed paper that refutes the conclusions that have been produced.  Heads have already rolled and it will be interesting to see more fallout.
I would suggest everyone to read it --- it isnt terribly thick with lingo but involves some techniques beyond me to prove the theory.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: unitedstrokesofamerica on May 08, 2009, 04:30:38 pm
This is PEER REVIEWED!!!!! you can not just post a stupid picture and say "DEBUNKED" case closed.  This guy is a moron.  Post this on the dip shits web site.



What Does "Peer-Reviewed" Mean?
If you've been asked to use peer-reviewed journals or articles in your research this means that you need material that has been critically assessed by experts or scholars in the author's field or specialty.Publishers of peer-reviewed (sometimes called refereed or scholarly) journals have a process where expert reviewers evaluate drafts of submitted articles before they are selected to be published. This ensures that the content of peer-reviewed articles is as valid and reliable as possible.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: Xill on May 08, 2009, 04:39:15 pm
Wow, those 3 jpegs will sure debunk years of research and hundreds of pages of data.

I guess we were wrong after all, evil Muslims really crashed those plane for imaginary virgins because they hate our freedom. They even trashed the United States economy with the genocides of their own people and the banker's bailout. The New World Order probably does not exist and the CIA is not the engine to propagate evil on earth after all.

It's all Osama bin laden:

(http://image12.webshots.com/13/1/47/25/169514725RJBgIH_ph.jpg)
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: Lucian Solaris on May 08, 2009, 04:44:18 pm
looks like the paint chips sample are hexi-laterals while the remains are quadrilaterals.

"The structure of the microscopic structure of the chips (left) is very close to kaolinite (paint primer) (right) -

" (http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Joneschipsvskaolinute.jpg)
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: nustada on May 08, 2009, 04:45:10 pm
Just because the shapes look similar means nother

The difference come in the form of fe (iron)

Virtually any scan of a sample on earth if taken out from a hight temperature area will contaign high amounts of O and C.

Also the only common ingreediant is AL.

Thermite is AL+FE

Nanothermite is pulverised AL+FE+S

There would be no way to tell the difference between contaminated kaolinite and thermite except for the unlikely ratio of FE to AL of about 1 to 1.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: grapecrusher1 on May 08, 2009, 05:04:46 pm
I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Thermite thing is dis-info to get people to debate about bullshit, instead of the facts that at the least the gov knew it was going to happen, and let it happen.. it's just a gut feeling I have, I don't trust anyone including AJ or whomever.

take your gut feeling and read the paper --- Dis-info what???  You have no clue what you are talking about.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: URpwneddude on May 08, 2009, 05:22:38 pm
BS!  Those specs look NOTHING alike and the ESM images?  Come on, some one is playing you because you don't look at these things very often.  You might as well be comparing red paint chips and dried blood!

This is has got to be the lamest attempt I have ever seen to pursuade the minds of the uninformed.  Believe me, the informed can tell the difference.  And it is substantial.

More dis-info BS.  Move along, nothing to see here.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: hal 9000 on May 08, 2009, 11:59:48 pm
Quote
BS!  Those specs look NOTHING alike and the ESM images?

The spectras [?] that the debunker posted look almost identical to me. He claims the one shows "Kaolinite mixed with gypsum" and the Jones/Harrit ones are from the supposed Nano Thermite chips.

Please don't get me wrong, I am a hard core "9/11 truther". I knew it was an inside job as I watched it all unfold on live tv. I believe Jones, Harrit and the rest of their team are onto something, but I want to see these counter claims specifically addressed. I do not have the knowledge required to be able to counter the claims like this one that the debunkers are going to hit us with fast and heavy - and believe me, they are going to attack these Nano Thermite findings with everything but the kitchen sink. My point, is that I want these smart ass debunkers to be roundly put in their places. In the thread from the forum I linked to, that particular debunkers claims have so far not been countered. I want to see all their smart ass lies countered and knocked to pieces. On this particular subject, I do not have the knowledge or expertise to answer.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: Utility Maximizer on May 09, 2009, 01:47:11 am
I find the attack on the legitimacy of the journal itself to be valid on one hand but not on the other. It does bother me a whole lot that this was in an actual pay to publish journal. In fact, I've never heard of those until know. I've never seen a pay to publish journal in my field of economics. That, I believe, is a valid attack on the legitimacy of the article. And just because it is "peer-reviewed" does not mean it does not contain errors, or at least minimal errors. Lots of published economics articles have lots of errors in them, especially mathematical errors.

I'm am not willing to totally accept the criticism of the legitimacy of the article because of the fact that this article is saying "we have proof that 3 buildings were destroyed by explosives on 9/11." People trying to publish something that goes totally against the status quo, especially in this day in age, will find it very hard to publish in "reputable" journals. Just because the journals are "peer-reviewed" does not mean the reviewers wont be totally biased against the article. My econ professors are a prime example. They are all hardcore libertarians and when they are writing an article that showcases that, they find it hard, if not impossible to publish in journals they deem "reputable." They have to sometimes go and get it published in "backwater" publications. We just don't know which other (if any) publications Harrit sent them to.

And don't forget that scientists attacking the status quo will always have harsh critics. Take for instance Einstein's theory relativity. His theory was not well liked at all in the beginning because it was against the status quo. After all relativity says there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame, which struck at the core of physics at that time.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: Scootle on May 09, 2009, 03:07:15 am
Is primer paint composed of nanosized particles?

Is primer paint more explosive than RDX?

I rest my case.

Debunkers have been trying this for ages ... Mark Roberts tried this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLu3VBGF5As&fmt=18) back in 2008 in his "debate" with Gage. Now don't get me wrong... the superthermite could have bee disguised as primer paint, which may explain why its similar ... and that could also explain how the buildings were rigged for demolition with very few people knowing.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: pac522 on May 09, 2009, 03:41:53 am
This is PEER REVIEWED!!!!! you can not just post a stupid picture and say "DEBUNKED" case closed.  This guy is a moron.  Post this on the dip shits web site.



What Does "Peer-Reviewed" Mean?
If you've been asked to use peer-reviewed journals or articles in your research this means that you need material that has been critically assessed by experts or scholars in the author's field or specialty.Publishers of peer-reviewed (sometimes called refereed or scholarly) journals have a process where expert reviewers evaluate drafts of submitted articles before they are selected to be published. This ensures that the content of peer-reviewed articles is as valid and reliable as possible.


Exactly,

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put.html
Quote
Debunkers may raise all sorts of objections on forums, such as "Oh, it's just paint" or "the aluminum is bound up in kaolin." We have answered those questions in the paper, and shown them to be nonsense, but you have to read to find the answers. I may also provide answers here and in emails, often quoting from the paper to show that the answers are already in it.

Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL (yes that would include Bentham Scientific journals), THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: Scootle on May 09, 2009, 04:45:21 am
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg)

The top spectra is missing something ... IRON lol ... so much for a close match!
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: grapecrusher1 on May 09, 2009, 06:06:36 am
I find the attack on the legitimacy of the journal itself to be valid on one hand but not on the other. It does bother me a whole lot that this was in an actual pay to publish journal. In fact, I've never heard of those until know. I've never seen a pay to publish journal in my field of economics. That, I believe, is a valid attack on the legitimacy of the article. And just because it is "peer-reviewed" does not mean it does not contain errors, or at least minimal errors. Lots of published economics articles have lots of errors in them, especially mathematical errors.

I'm am not willing to totally accept the criticism of the legitimacy of the article because of the fact that this article is saying "we have proof that 3 buildings were destroyed by explosives on 9/11." People trying to publish something that goes totally against the status quo, especially in this day in age, will find it very hard to publish in "reputable" journals. Just because the journals are "peer-reviewed" does not mean the reviewers wont be totally biased against the article. My econ professors are a prime example. They are all hardcore libertarians and when they are writing an article that showcases that, they find it hard, if not impossible to publish in journals they deem "reputable." They have to sometimes go and get it published in "backwater" publications. We just don't know which other (if any) publications Harrit sent them to.

And don't forget that scientists attacking the status quo will always have harsh critics. Take for instance Einstein's theory relativity. His theory was not well liked at all in the beginning because it was against the status quo. After all relativity says there is no such thing as an absolute reference frame, which struck at the core of physics at that time.

My wife has a pHD in neuroscience and I am aware of the inner workings of academia.  This being said tthe fact that this paper has been published at all is nothing short of a miracle.  If you have been looking at the truth movement at all it is easy to realize the massive amount of pressure against it: dis-info, mis-info, congnitive dissonance, etc.  Look at how this editor has been forced to step down in some strategy to discredit the paper's publishing.  How I would vet the credibility of the paper is look at who the scientists and named referees involved.  For example just look at Jones and Harrit both of whom have extensive publications (50+ apeice) and excellent reputations in their fields, these guys arent just post-docs.  Harrit was originally just a referee because his background is specifically rooted in nano-energetic materials -- because he saw the relevance of the work he got on board.  I think this makes him both credible and qualified for people to listen too.

Your point that publications do contain errors is valid but I dont think so in this particular case.  Jones has said that because of the sensitive nature of the work great lengths were taken to ensure solidity and it was edited and reviewed far more than any other paper he had worked on.  Nonetheless what sort of "error" are you eluding to? ie. completely off base and what they have found is not nano thermite? or some sort of grammatical error?

Your last point about Einstein should be clarified.  If anything this paper can be likened to a theory that is very much against the current paradigm where you seem to be saying this is a populist paper, at least that is my take on what you have written.  Maybe you are saying that it is difficult to publish unpopular papers --- which should answer you question of the validity of the publication --- of course Nature or some other mainstream publication is not going to touch this, we have already seen the editors head roll. 

You seem to understand the circumstances but not.



Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: 37 on May 09, 2009, 07:49:58 am
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg)

The top spectra is missing something ... IRON lol ... so much for a close match!

I noticed that, too.  The iron is the telltale sign of thermite. 

That's what I would ask the debunker, "Why does the WTC sample have more iron in it?"


And, I agree that those two pictures don't look anything alike...to my, admittedly, untrained eye.

I'm not terribly impressed with this evidence.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: hal 9000 on May 09, 2009, 12:47:52 pm
Quote
The top spectra is missing something ... IRON lol ... so much for a close match!

Yes, it does seem to be missing Iron, or at least it does not appear (FE). Wonder why not?

I just noticed another thing: the spike on the far left is cropped off at the top. It appears to be cut off way short from the top. Again, I wonder why?

And I wonder if that is because if we saw the entire height of the spike, it would become even more obvious that the specra doesn't really match the Jones/Harrit spectra at all. Wouldn't surprise me. Debunkers pull those kinds of tricks all the time.

In fact, the guy that is making these arguments on that forum ("Len Colby") is a rather suspicious character to begin with. He seems to spend his every waking hour on that forum arguing against every postulation of conspiracy made by other forum members. In fact, a bunch of posters accused "him" of actually being more than one person due to the fact that "his" posts seem to be written in several different writing styles, varying from articulate at times, to containing atrocious grammar and spelling at other times. It would also explain how he frequently responds to a particular post with a long, detailed rebuttal, jam packed with arcane technical jargon, literally within moments of the post being made. "His" IP address has been traced to a computer connected to a government agency in Brazil. "He" is not just some guy hanging out on that forum. Definitely a spook[s?] in my opinion.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: BlueBaron on May 09, 2009, 12:54:55 pm
I worked in demolition for 5 years, and I said it as soon as I saw it on 9/11 those builds were blown up, that was long before Steve Jones made a documentary, AE9/11 or any body spoke about it.

So I don't care if people say it was or was not blown up, I made my decision on day one, and all I've seen over the years that followed is data to prove my original thoughts rights.

Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: hal 9000 on May 09, 2009, 01:12:53 pm
"Len Colby" just posted a good link to a very interesting email exchange between Professor Jones and a Dr. Greening who made some criticisms of Jones tests - http://the911forum.freeforums.org/email-correspondence-on-active-thermitic-paper-abridged-t157.html

[excerpt]

From Dr. Greening:

Steven,

I must say that your paper presents a very interesting body of research on
the analysis of the WTC dust. However, one problem with the paper is the use
of EDAX to identify the chemical form of iron in the red chips. Using EDAX
in this way is not very reliable to say the least!

“Iron oxide” is potentially a very complex mixture of Fe-O bonded species:

Hematite = alpha-Fe2O3
Maghemite = gamma-Fe2O3
Magnetite = Fe3O4
Lepidocrocite or Goethite = FeOOH
Wustite = FeO

You need a technique like XRD to sort this mess out.

Back in the day I made regular use of a Phillips XRD instrument and I
frequently analysed “rust” from carbon steel corrosion deposits on nuclear
reactor pipework. XRD analysis is relatively simple to carry out, (which
means it’s inexpensive!), and could generate additional information on all
the phases that are present in the WTC chips. Thus I would expect to see, in
addition to iron and iron oxide, alpha-alumina, Al2O3, and possibly iron
aluminate, FeAl2O4. And, of course, you should detect metallic Al and/or
iron/aluminium alloys such as Fe3Al.

Frank

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

From Professor Jones:

We raised the same questions amongst ourselves, of course -- and we
looked into XRD some time ago. We decided that TEM analysis is
probably better and certainly can be done with a smaller sample size,
which is an important consideration here.

This TEM analysis is now underway. I agree that such analysis is important.

Steven J


THE MATERIAL IS ATTRACTED BY A STRONG MAGNET. ELEMENTAL AL CANNOT BE
MAGNETIC, NO. THIS BEHAVIOR CAN BE DUE TO GAMMA-FE2O3, AS ONE
EXAMPLE, AND IN ANY CASE DOES NOT RULE OUT CLASSIFICATION AS
SUPER-THERMITE.

(redacted)
I DON'T KNOW, I DID NOT TRY TO USE A MAGNET ON HIS MATERIAL -- WHICH
WAS PRODUCED NEAR THE END OF THE STUDY AND LONG AFTER THE PAPER WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE JOURNAL TOCPJ.

(redacted)
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS FORM OF AL2O3, GAMMA-AL2O3.

(redacted)
WE ARE NOT CLAIMING THIS MATERIAL IS PRIMER PAINT! INDEED, IF WHAT
YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE FACT THAT THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE MAGNETIC IS
FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT THE CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT.



Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: kevlar442 on May 09, 2009, 01:18:53 pm
Yes, it does seem to be missing Iron, or at least it does not appear (FE). Wonder why not?

I just noticed another thing: the spike on the far left is cropped off at the top. It appears to be cut off way short from the top. Again, I wonder why?

And I wonder if that is because if we saw the entire height of the spike, it would become even more obvious that the specra doesn't really match the Jones/Harrit spectra at all. Wouldn't surprise me. Debunkers pull those kinds of tricks all the time.

In fact, the guy that is making these arguments on that forum ("Len Colby") is a rather suspicious character to begin with. He seems to spend his every waking hour on that forum arguing against every postulation of conspiracy made by other forum members. In fact, a bunch of posters accused "him" of actually being more than one person due to the fact that "his" posts seem to be written in several different writing styles, varying from articulate at times, to containing atrocious grammar and spelling at other times. It would also explain how he frequently responds to a particular post with a long, detailed rebuttal, jam packed with arcane technical jargon, literally within moments of the post being made. "His" IP address has been traced to a computer connected to a government agency in Brazil. "He" is not just some guy hanging out on that forum. Definitely a spook[s?] in my opinion.

Yeah the Iron peaks are missing (3 different oxidation states); also the Sodium and Potassium peaks. 
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: hal 9000 on May 09, 2009, 01:46:29 pm
An interesting rebuttal to Greening's charges -

From Gregg Roberts: (Steven Jones colleague)

"Frank,

In your tight focus on whether we have really found elemental aluminum -- which, pending your response, I believe we have successfully defended in the affirmative -- you seem to keep forgetting our other findings, of which you have offered no criticism: that the particles are nano-sized, intimately mixed, explosive, and yield iron-rich microspheres exactly like those ones also found in the WTC dust. Whatever it's made of, it goes BOOM! -- and would not be ubiquitous in the dust if it came from Bldg 6.

What is this, the OJ trial?! How can you even consider exonerating the culprit just because you're not sure one glove fits, when the other four DO fit?"

The statement you quoted from the patent says nothing about nanothermite. Nanothermites are certainly not in common use, and they fit the definition of restricted munitions:
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: hal 9000 on May 09, 2009, 04:09:30 pm
Another interesting rebuttal:

From Professor Jones (to metamars)

"Good -- you will need to do a filming to record the expected flash. IMO, not a "flame" but a flash, yes.
And yes, if ignition occurs -- and it might! -- then you will have iron-rich microspheres.
Then do the same thing with paint --> no microspheres!"

Steve

------------
As far as I can see, Jones cuts through the bull with that statement. How could primer paint chips ignite like a thermite mixture? Let the debunkers try and ignite sample chips of primer paint, and see if it results in iron rich microspheres. Sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: grapecrusher1 on May 09, 2009, 04:32:01 pm
Good tip.  Read the entire back and forth banter and was amazed at how the protagonist just kept spouting this scenario and that scenario getting shot down over and over without refuting the valid queries posed to him.  Finally the team start's to get annoyed and calls him on it and things just fizzle.  Apparently he is out of McMaster university.
Title: Re: Jones/Harrit Nano Thermite chips debunked???
Post by: hal 9000 on May 09, 2009, 06:36:37 pm
Quote
Read the entire back and forth banter and was amazed at how the protagonist just kept spouting this scenario and that scenario getting shot down over and over without refuting the valid queries posed to him.  Finally the team start's to get annoyed and calls him on it and things just fizzle.

That is the classic debunker tactic: just keep throwing red herrings at the other side and try and wear them down responding to them. Every time a red herring is addressed and refuted, change the course of the discussion by throwing another one in - then, repeat the process again and again and again and again and again and again until we're right back where we started with the original false claim. You can see when this type of charade is being perpetrated if you are reasonably observant.

Imagine a good prosecutor breaking down a defendant in a murder trial to the point where said defendant has just incriminated himself as the murderer, and up pops the defense attorney shouting at the top of his lungs "BLOOBEDY BLOOB, BLOBEDLY BLOB, KINITCHKOO KRABOBTOP TOPAMEE GOO!!!" over and over and over again. For the most part, that is what the debunkers really are doing. They act as a smoke screen to keep the truth obscured from people's view.

Some day they will be held accountable for helping to protect such high crimes as mass murder. May God have mercy on their souls.
Title: Re: thermite is not pigment
Post by: Plautus on December 02, 2010, 02:47:13 am
"The structure of the microscopic structure of the chips (left) is very close to kaolinite (paint primer) (right) -
" (http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Joneschipsvskaolinute.jpg)

The structure of the chips is similar. What's absent in the "kaolinite" is the presence of tiny nano-scale granules mixed in with it. Those size particles are generally not spontaneous, they're made only in labs. Also it's worth noting that in paint, only trace amounts of this material is used, as a pigment. The material on the left is clearly present in more than "trace" amounts. It is not paint, it is thermite.

"The spectra are an almost perfect match as well. The kaolinite w/gypsum sceptra on top one is from the USGS the lower ones are from the Harrit-Jones paper."

Note the "with gypsum" qualification on the data. When used as a pigment in paint, this material does not contain gypsum.

(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/spectra.jpg)

Also note that the spectra of unreacted thermite found in the World Trade Center dust:
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/docs/xeds_commercial.png)
is identical to the spectra of the residue collected from steel known to be exposed to burning thermite:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/thermite%20spectrum/subedei11/Slide160_PNG.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/image/thermite%20spectrum/subedei11/Slide160_PNG.jpg)

The chemical composition of these two materials is similar. Notice that "kaolinite" has quite a bit of carbon and very little oxygen. In thermite you see the REVERSE, very little carbon and quite a bit of oxygen. Abundances of aluminum, silicon and iron are also WAY OFF in the "kaolinite". That's one reason it's so energetic. You don't expect this sort of energetic material to form spontaneously in a building collapse, just as you don't expect a box of matches to be the result of a forest fire.

Come on, people, being skeptical is good, but being a pseudoskeptic just so you can sleep better at night is shameful. The World Trade Center was quite clearly demolished in a controlled demolition, and anyone who denies it is either IN denial, or they are ignorant, or they are plain stupid. This is one good example, the "debunker" pseudoskeptics trot out "it's paint, stupid!", without ever comparing the two materials to discover (not surprisingly) that they are not chemically identical and we can tell one from another. Paint pigment is not an energetic pyrotechnic!!!
Title: Re: thermite is not pigment
Post by: Dig on December 02, 2010, 05:21:30 am
The structure of the chips is similar. What's absent in the "kaolinite" is the presence of tiny nano-scale granules mixed in with it. Those size particles are generally not spontaneous, they're made only in labs. Also it's worth noting that in paint, only trace amounts of this material is used, as a pigment. The material on the left is clearly present in more than "trace" amounts. It is not paint, it is thermite.

Note the "with gypsum" qualification on the data. When used as a pigment in paint, this material does not contain gypsum.

Also note that the spectra of unreacted thermite found in the World Trade Center dust:
(http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/docs/xeds_commercial.png)
is identical to the spectra of the residue collected from steel known to be exposed to burning thermite:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/thermite%20spectrum/subedei11/Slide160_PNG.jpg (http://media.photobucket.com/image/thermite%20spectrum/subedei11/Slide160_PNG.jpg)

The chemical composition of these two materials is similar. Notice that "kaolinite" has quite a bit of carbon and very little oxygen. In thermite you see the REVERSE, very little carbon and quite a bit of oxygen. Abundances of aluminum, silicon and iron are also WAY OFF in the "kaolinite". That's one reason it's so energetic. You don't expect this sort of energetic material to form spontaneously in a building collapse, just as you don't expect a box of matches to be the result of a forest fire.

Come on, people, being skeptical is good, but being a pseudoskeptic just so you can sleep better at night is shameful. The World Trade Center was quite clearly demolished in a controlled demolition, and anyone who denies it is either IN denial, or they are ignorant, or they are plain stupid. This is one good example, the "debunker" pseudoskeptics trot out "it's paint, stupid!", without ever comparing the two materials to discover (not surprisingly) that they are not chemically identical and we can tell one from another. Paint pigment is not an energetic pyrotechnic!!!

Wow, talk about a thorough routing! Nice summation!
Title: Re: Congrats 911truth deniers...now the world knows 100x more about thermite
Post by: Scootle on December 02, 2010, 06:56:13 am
FOUR PICTURES ... YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Pfc7WufNIhQ/S7btR_k3kLI/AAAAAAAAAGs/Fa4aaZenwys/s1600/redchip.jpg) (http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/9265/nanoparticles.jpg)

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Pfc7WufNIhQ/S7XlWjRSiVI/AAAAAAAAAGE/ZUrmxFiicfk/s1600/dscgraph.jpg) (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Pfc7WufNIhQ/S7XkGt9jhtI/AAAAAAAAAF8/Qct5VciauTY/s400/postdscthermite.jpg)


The spectra isn't that important... it's these three pics that are damning...

The electron microscope image proves it to be nano technology.

The graph proves that when it is heated to a certain temperature a large amount of energy is released in a narrow amount of time (i.e. it explodes!).

The last image shows previously molten iron microspheres stuck to a chip after being ignited that weren't there before, proving it to be thermite.
Title: Re: Congrats 911truth deniers...now the world knows 100x more about thermite
Post by: Plautus on December 04, 2010, 07:15:19 pm
(http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l281/lenbrazil/Joneschipsvskaolinute.jpg)

I also discovered that this material had been soaked in "MEK" (methyl ethyl ketone, butanone) for 55 minutes with periodic agitation. Butanone is paint remover. All that happened was the matrix expanded, the wafers of aluminum and the nodules of iron oxide migrated and clumped together (which explains the "stacks" of the aluminum wafers and clumps of iron nodules), and chips of this stuff stuck to each other when agitated. Micrographs of the original material showed a much more homogeneous distribution of the hexagonal wafers of aluminum and the nodules of iron oxide.

The material on the right, again, is just a pigment used in paint, a pigment used in trace amounts, and the hexagonal wafers are not elemental aluminum as they are in the material on the left. Just another one of the many inaccuracies of claims made about this stuff.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html
Title: Re: Congrats 911truth deniers...now the world knows 100x more about thermite
Post by: Plautus on December 04, 2010, 07:20:53 pm
Also it looks like the thread in the forum where this "debunking" came from is gone, or at least the post referenced in the initial post of this thread is gone.