9 scientists find Nano-Thermite Explosive in 9/11 samples | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)
Typing a lot, saying almost nothing (none / 0)

I reject this statement.

 Given a choice, would you tend to trust a team of PhD researchers published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal who having nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing this research -- or members of the Bush-Cheney Cabal? There is only one logical answer.

From what I could find, only one or two of the people reviewing this piece have PhD's. This is important as BYU began to distance themselves from his work noting that they questioned his interpretation of evidence and expressed doubts over whether or not the work had been submitted to relevant scientific venues to ensure rigorous technical peer review.

To say that the choice is between these scientists or Bush-Cheney is an outright false dichotomy. I don't have any relevant college education on this subject and I am led to believe you don't as well. So we both look at the same facts and come to different answers. You are trusting a few scientists making some bold claims. I am trusting the rest of the scientific world that is not being turned by the evidence and is questioning the validity of the work and review itself. Could the few be right? Of course, but when going on to a subject I have no real training with I tend to believe the majority of what most scientists believe. Why is that? They may have access and experience with things that I just don't know about.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 04:07:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The NIST investigation didn't test for explosives (none / 0)
Exactly what "facts" are you referring to?

NIST investigators never tested for evidence of explosives at Ground Zero. That is a "fact". The reason given by NIST was that there was no evidence that explosives were used.

Note the circular logic.

The "fact" is that these scientists tested dust collected near the World Trade Center using a variety of highly reputable methods -- and discovered thermite in all samples tested.

You make the unfounded claim that "most scientists" have questioned or criticized this peer-reviewed, published research. This is an outright fabrication.  

Please post links to ANY writings or blog posts by legitimate scientists  "questioning the validity of the work or the review itself." Even a single link.

I'll be waiting.

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 04:18:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
analysis correct, conclusion wrong (none / 0)
Here is the problem.  The paper analyzed debris and found aluminum and iron oxide in all samples...this I do not doubt one bit.   Of coures a large flying aluminum tube full of jet fuel was on fire inside a huge iron and concrete building that undoubtedly also contained lots of aluminum in things like office furnature, soda cans, appliances etc.....I wonder where all the rust and aluminum came from?  Must be a government conspiracy! 

by alphasigmookie on 04/18/2009 04:51:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not quite (none / 0)
"The "fact" is that these scientists tested dust collected near the World Trade Center using a variety of highly reputable methods -- and discovered thermite in all samples tested."

The fact is that the dust near the WTC contained rust and aluminum residue.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 05:13:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
rust isn't the same thing as thermite (none / 0)
The following is a direct quote from an abstract of peer-reviewed research report published this month in "The Open Chemical Physics Journal". It is a description based on scientific analysis of dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Centers in New York City on September 11, 2001:

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

http://www.bentham-open.org /pages/content.php?TOCPJ/20 09/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ .SGM

Spin all you want, for whatever reasons or motives you wish. "Unreacted thermitic material" is not the same thing as "rust and aluminum residue."

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 06:12:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Quick point (none / 0)

http://video.google.com/vid eoplay?docid=19574908670303 16250

timestamp 39:44

By this statement it is very easy to assume this is the way it works.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:17:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
From Wikipedia (none / 0)
Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. The fuels are often aluminium, magnesium, calcium, titanium, zinc, silicon, and boron. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,II,IV) oxide. [1]

The most common thermite is aluminium-iron(III) oxide.

"Thermite" is not an element. It is manufactured out of other chemicals and has several formulas. The most common formula is aluminum and RUST.

You find evidence of C-4, PETN or of the hundreds of gnomes required to secretly secrete multiple tons of "thermite" into the structures of both WTC towers (as well as Building 7?) then we can talk.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 06:28:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Who said Thermite is an element?? (none / 0)
Who said Thermite is an element? Did I say Thermite is an element? Did Jones say Thermite is an element? Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

YOU are the one jumping to conclusions concerning "hundreds of gnomes." You apparently believe the official conspiracy theory, the one that was created mere hours after the attack before ANY investigation occured.

I'm interested in FACTS. Not speculation, not conspiracy theories. And the FACT is that highly reactive thermite material was discovered in these dust samples.

This demands further investigation. That's all I'm saying. You seem very sure of your speculations regarding the events that occured. What do you have to fear from a comprehensive, unbiased investigation? Being so sure of what happened you should EMBRACE further investigation. It will prove your official theory once and for all and silence these "wacky" conspiracy theorists once and for all. Won't it?
 

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 09:54:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You seem very excited (none / 0)
1)  "highly reactive thermite material was discovered in these dust samples." No, aluminum and rust were found. Thermite is composed of aluminum and iron oxide (rust). That aluminum and rust were found in 9/11 samples is hardly surprising.

2) If not magic gnomes then who do you think secretly brought in and installed the tons and tons of "thermite" required (not to mention the miles of electric fuse, blasting caps, det cord, etc...).

3) "the one that was created mere hours after the attack" or the obvious time line based on the historical truth. Just because it was easy to figure out after the fact are you saying that renders it improbable?

4) "Investigate" all you want but stop ignoring common sense explanations in favor of your "gnome theory". The WTC towers collapsed after being struck and set on fire by fully loaded jet airliners.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 10:10:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
FBI: No hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11 (none / 0)
With due respect, your MO seems to be to put ridiculous words into other peoples' mouths. The "gnome theory" is all yours, not mine. I don't KNOW what happened. That's the point.

The official conspiracy theory that you take as gospel is not, in fact, "obvious" at all. It's certainly not "easy to find out."  If it was, you'd think the FBI would be able to do so, wouldn't you?

According to your official conspiracy theory, Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of a plot involving 19 hijackers and three planes. If it's "easy to prove," as you assert, you'd think that bin Laden would be formally charged, correct? That's a no brainer, right? But according to the FBI, there is no hard evidence connecting bin Laden with 9/11:

June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.  In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?”  The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya.  According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people.  The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.” 

 
On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11.  The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.  When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” 

 
Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?”  Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.”  I asked, “How does that work?”  Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence.  Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury.  In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury.  He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”


http://www.globalresearch.c a/index.php?context=viewArt icle&code=20060610& articleId=2623

I'm eager to hear how you'd explain that one away? If you can and do, you have a lucrative career awaiting in spin control (if you don't have one already :))   
 

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 10:37:45 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm eager to hear how you'd explain that one away? (none / 0)

Because al Quada is an amorphous organization with an ever shifting command and control? Bin Laden was not a member of the cell that crafted the 9/11 plot anymore than it was President Obama who personally took the shot on those three pirates last week.

The al Quada organization, run by Bin Laden, orchestrated 9/11. Nineteen Al Quada members were on the planes, there were many recorded telephone calls from passengers and cockpit recordings describing the events as well. Two planes flew into the WTC and it fell down. What's shocking about that? If they fell without being struck, that might have been a little strange.

P.S.  The "gnomes" references are what I like to call "being facetious" because I have a sense of humor. Some people don't.

P.P.S. Just think how embarrassing it would have been for those gnomes if the impact of the two planes had disconnected the electrical detonators of their charges. That certainly would have been hard to explain when the NYFD found tons and tons of deactivated explosives in the partially burned WTC.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/18/2009 11:19:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Building 7 did fall down without being struck (none / 0)
I think it's fair then, to infer that you would think that a steel structure building falling at freefall speed is "a little strange." Especially since a steel frame structure has never before or since collapsed due to fire.

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 11:00:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Urban conspiracy myth (none / 0)

You just parroted three well discredited conspiracy falsehoods. No matter how many times they are disproved, conspiracy theorists continue to repeat them. Feel free to show me otherwise. For example:

1) "Fell down without being struck" If I showed you evidence Building 7 was struck as well as set on fire by WTC debris, would it change your mind?

2)  "Freefall speed" How fast is that, how fast did the WTC fall, how fast do you think a collapsing building would fall and assuming there is some dichotomy - can you explain what you infer from it?

3) "A steel frame structure has never before or since collapsed due to fire" If I showed you evidence several steel frame structures have indeed "collapsed due to fire" would it change your mind?

You keep calling for people to look at the facts. If your facts are shown to be incorrect will you change your mind or will you find new and improved facts?

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/19/2009 02:18:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bam! (none / 0)

"You keep calling for people to look at the facts. If your facts are shown to be incorrect will you change your mind or will you find new and improved facts?"

I think you have gotten to the very nub of the issue there Rob.

by bfaul on 04/19/2009 03:56:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Now we're getting somewhere! (none / 0)
Robrob, I sincerely appreciate your willingness to use reason here. Please share links to any of the assertions you make in your post. It truly WOULD make a difference to me!


1) "Fell down without being struck" If I showed you evidence Building 7 was struck as well as set on fire by WTC debris, would it change your mind?

NIST *itself* blames the collapse on fire:

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse

"...Finally, the report notes that “while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had little effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7....”

http://www.nist.gov/public_ affairs/releases/wtc082108. html

2)  "Freefall speed" How fast is that, how fast did the WTC fall, how fast do you think a collapsing building would fall and assuming there is some dichotomy - can you explain what you infer from it?

Here's a video series from Architects for 911 Truth: "NIST Finally Admits Freefall"
http://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=V0GHVEKrhng


3) "A steel frame structure has never before or since collapsed due to fire" If I showed you evidence several steel frame structures have indeed "collapsed due to fire" would it change your mind?

Please do show such evidence. I'd be eager to see it. I've been unable to unearth a single example other than WTC 7. NIST itself describes the WTC 7 collapse as an "extraordinary event." Here is some more info. from WTC7.net:

Fires have never been blamed for the collapse of a steel frame high rise before, and there are examples of skyscrapers being ravaged by severe fires. Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".


http://911research.wtc7.net /materials/wtc/b7.html

I appreciate the opportunity to engage in rational discussion here.  I'm not kidding. I don't relish the idea that there was some nefarious inside plot to do this. It's a sad thing to contemplate.

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 04:29:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Please refer to the bottom post (none / 0)
I don't like how replies get more and more "squeezed" in.

"No, you are a paid blogger assigned to counter anyone that posts something negative about the government or Obama." by Mcamelyne II on 05/17/2011

by Robrob on 04/19/2009 10:35:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok if you must (none / 0)

 All the links open new windows. (Or at least should)

http://chronicle.com/free/v 52/i42/42a01001.htm

http://newsnet.byu.edu/stor y.cfm/57724

http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/1,5143,645199800,00 .html

http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/1,5143,645201360,00 .html

http://www.deseretnews.com/ article/1,5143,650200587,00 .html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ news/article-403757/Fury-ac ademics-claim-9-11-inside-j ob.html

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148 &sid=476951

A correction of sorts; NIST investigators never tested for the kinds of explosives used since there was no evidence of explosives being used at all. Typically, explosive use is obvious upon visual inspection and the tests are to figure out exactly what kind had been used.

Now onto a short review of the new paper put forward. I will type things as i read them.

The dust samples seem to be taken from citizens living in the area, and then given to this group six years later. The dust is magnetic in nature. The dust is very small, chip shaped, between .2 and 3 mm in width and 10 to 100 micros thick. Scanned by an electron microscope. Scanned by a calorimeter to test for heat flow. Two layers to the chips, one red, one grey. Grey layer is of high iron and oxygen (rust) content and a little carbon. Red layers are the same with the addition of aluminum and silicon and higher amount of carbon.

Chips all ignited in the range of 779F - 815F. Of the four samples analyzed, yields are estimated at 1.5, 3, 6, 7.5 kJ/g. Afterwords microspheres of iron and silcon were observed. The paper continues to test these chips against paint chips for reasons i can not determine. The paper mentions a video clip of the test of ignition but the link appears to be broken. 

The paper begins to go into speculation about how such a product could have been applied to a structure. 

I have a few issues with the paper. Firstly, the samples were taken from citizens of New York six years after the fact. To say that the validity of the samples is questionable is an understatement. Secondly, they test the "9/11 chips" against paint chips. I would be testing them against things I think they may actually be. Thirdly, they claim such a product could be spread safely onto a surface with the application of a gel. Whether or not this gel has to be spread onto the actual beams of a building or if the drywall or cement will do is not mentioned. This is one of the sources stated in the paper.

http://awards.lanl.gov/PDFf iles/Super-Thermite_Electri c_Matches_2003.pdf

To me that is a joke. Its more of an ad then an actual source. In fact a lot of the sources for the paper come from the people involved with this paper. Sometimes even worse, just linking to 9/11 conspiracy sites that have little or no scientific merit. In one of the video sources, Jones mentions that he can make a thermate that matches what they found in the chips very easily.

http://video.google.com/vid eoplay?docid=19574908670303 16250

Timestamp 40:24

I think this is enough for now.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:08:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your links PREDATE THE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER! (none / 0)
We're talking about the scientific integrity of the peer-reviewed paper, correct??? The one that was just published???

Then WHY on God's green earth are your links from 2006 and 2007?

Let's talk about the research at hand, shall we? Send me a SINGLE link to someone questioning the integrity of this study and then we can have a conversation.

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 09:47:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Its called building a case... (none / 0)

And I thought that part was obvious. He is well known for jumping to conclusions, so parden me if I think the source of his "WTC chips" is questionable.

From the comments made here, and also the ones to Robrob, I think I am done here until you have something real to add. My guess, and its just a guess, is that you probably don't know a whole lot about what happened and are following the conspiracy theories out of ignorance (meaning lack of knowledge). ...and please stop refering to the accepted sequence of events as the Official Conspiracy Theory or the Bush-Cheney Conspiracy, it really doesn't help your side.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 12:46:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The scientific integrity still not challenged (none / 0)
Bountiful personal attacks, no substance, imprecise or outright incorrect definitions of terms.  And not a single link critical of the peer-reviewed research we're talking about.

Intelligent, reasonable people aren't generally convinced by this sort of desperate debating tactic, regardless of where they stand on an issue.

Still waiting for a link to a legitimate scientist criticizing the integrity of this peer-reviewed research:

http://rawstory.com/news/20 08/Scientists_find_active_s uperthermite_in_WTC_0404.ht ml



by truthisall on 04/19/2009 10:57:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
say WHAT? (none / 0)
You wrote that "BYU began to distance themselves from his work noting that they questioned his interpretation of evidence and expressed doubts over whether or not the work had been submitted to relevant scientific venues to ensure rigorous technical peer review."

THIS PAPER WAS SUBMITTED AND ACCEPTED BY A RELEVANT SCIENTIFIC VENUE (The Open Chemical Physics Journal) TO ENSURE RIGOROUS TECHNICAL PEER REVIEW! That's what we're talking about here, friend!

by truthisall on 04/18/2009 04:51:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A quick point (none / 0)
You are confusing the way events occurred in time. Jones started doing this stuff a few years back. His methods were questionable then. The university then started to back away from him and even put him on paid leave at a point. He acknowledge the suspension as valid and made a claim that he would restructure his methods. Since then he has at least tried to go in a more scientific direction.

by Hilikus9191 on 04/18/2009 06:13:57 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's. The. Point. (none / 0)
He has not only "tried to go in a more scientific direction." He has *succeeded* in going in a more scientific direction. The scientific integrity of his peer-reviewed paper finding thermitic material in dust samples taken near the World Trade Center remains unchallenged. That is. The. Point. Of. What. I've. Been Saying. All. Along.

by truthisall on 04/19/2009 11:09:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
hardly any science (none / 0)

Chips were examined, found to be energetic, that's it. Where they were found is hearsay. How they were used is hearsay. Crunching numbers as to how much of this stuff is needed to get the job done, quickly dumps it into crazy bin.

But I have a question for you. Lets assume this was staged and it happened as you think it did. What was the overall goal? Crimes always have some kind of motive. I am interested in what you think. 

by Hilikus9191 on 04/19/2009 03:15:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]

9 scientists find Nano-Thermite Explosive in 9/11 samples | 46 comments (46 topical, 0 hidden)