Australia is facing a controversy that is all too familiar to Americans. Fundamentalists in state schools are teaching children that humans and dinosaurs lived together and Noah brought dinosaur eggs on to the Ark.
Children are also taught that Adam and Eve were not eaten by dinosaurs “because they were under a protective spell.”
This is consistent with Palintology — the new science advanced by Sarah Palin — which insists that man and dinosaur must have co-existed despite carbon dating and simple logic.
Source: News
SCIENCE SIDEBAR:
Sad news to relay for those who love astronomy. A television fixture for as long as I can recall has passed. The Star Gazer Jack Horkheimer passed away Friday at age 72. He was a fixtire at the Miami Planetarium but he is best known for his short TV spots where he’d pass along tidbits or current celestial events that you could go out and observe. COD was not disclosed, but he’d been suffering from respiratory problems for years. He always ended his segments with “Keep looking up at the stars!” so it is only fitting that his self-chosen epitaph is:
‘Keep Looking Up was my life’s admonition // I can do little else in my present position.'”
Always the joker. 🙂
Good bye, Jack.
Your excitement and love for astronomy will be missed.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/home/101194934.html
Bob seems to be taking his time replying to my latest, so I thought that I would chum the waters a little more…
Bob,Esq. posted on August 14, 2010 at 11:25 am
The straw man is your implication that all of my criticism of Dr. Jones is invalid due to the fact that I haven’t read this particular paper. What I’ve read hasn’t given me any reason to doubt my criticism and my objections to his ethics, lack of control samples, and chain of custody issues will still be valid even if the paper clears up other issues (which it hasn’t so far… nope, didn’t clear any of these up).
I would certainly welcome any scientific criticism, but all I get is objection to my use of basic physics that have been understood for more than a century. In an interview (I provided a link above to the interview along with my comments) Dr. Harrit calls himself a member of Dr. Jones’ team. It doesn’t sound to me like Dr. Harrit represent independent confirmation of Dr. Jones’ work… Additionally, the Bentham journals seem to be somewhat sketchy (make that ‘very sketchy’).
I read it – I do not think it means what you think it means. Besides, after watching the video I posted of Dr. Harrit, I’m not convinced that he’s the sharpest tool in the shed, either (he was spouting quite a few long debunked theories…).
Um… No. Exactly what assertions by Dr. Jones do you think are validated by the Harrit paper? Because I didn’t notice any and I have read Dr. Jones’s other papers (on 9/11, anyway).
Here’s my source:
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
(Plus, of course, the links and quotes I’ve already posted…)
Bob,Esq.
1, August 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I’m sorry that I seem to have scared off your new friend, I guess he didn’t have the stomach for a fight… As for the physics, energy is a scalar quantity (one of the reasons that it is generally easier to work with than force), hence the lack of a directional component in my calculations. I have explained the mechanisms whereby GPE is converted into thermal energy repeatedly and in detail. The amount of work done can be estimated without any references to the forces involved.
The physics principles involved in both events are exactly the same. On Dec. 20 at 8:41 pm, I posted this:
“4. Kinetic energy from impact – This may have raised the temperature of some steel by 20 degrees and certainly added an enormous amount of heat to the rubble pile.”
and ever since then I have referred to the kinetic energy of impact as raising the temperature by about 20°C and haven’t in any way implied that it could have been responsible for melting steel (other than to make it very slightly easier for something else to melt steel). I think it’s about time you found something new to whine about.
I have explained the processes by which work converted energy from one form to another in the collapse. Kinetic energy is converted to thermal energy by the mechanism of internal friction (either by bending or impact). If what I’ve said about energy is so ridiculous, then what does it say about you that you’ve never been able to find a single source to contradict what I’ve said? Put up or shut up.
All skyscrapers contain enough GPE to undergo gravitational collapse given an initiating event – otherwise controlled demolition would be impossible. The enormous amount of energy dissipated in the WTC collapse in addition to fires and other chemical reactions both before and after the collapse certainly made this particular rubble pile much hotter than the norm, but it doesn’t require any sort of incendiary to have happened (and I don’t believe that explosives could have don’t the job at all). Fire alone could have been responsible for enough heat to generate a liquid eutectic mixture including steel.
I believe it helped educate the casual reader into understanding that impacts generate heat, but I guess we’ll never know unless a casual reader cares to enlighten us about what they inferred… And by sophistry are you including ‘controlled demolition’, ‘residue Dr. Jones says is thermitic’, ‘controlled demolition’… ?
The fact that bending a piece of metal generates heat is clearly relevant to this discussion.
Energy doesn’t have a directional component, it’s a scalar quantity.
How do you define a direction associated with an energy? All the calculations I’ve done using energy are simple and straightforward and use physics that have been understood for over a century.
I like comparisons like that and think that they are helpful to develop intuition about the scale of things (plus they seem to annoy you ;-)).
Your writing isn’t very clear then, but a sample of DNA is unique to the person it’s taken from (mod twins). In any case, Harrit, et al. didn’t live up to their burden to give scientific evidence of the non-fungibility of their evidence of thermitic materials.
Once again, they only showed that their samples MAY have been thermitic in nature. Until they do more than that, non-fungibility is just another unsupported claim.
Nor was it used in the WTC, in all probability.
Classy. Again, you should try to write more clearly.
It should be obvious by now that that isn’t true…
Once again, I’m sorry I ran off your little friend… If you read my sentence, it starts with the conditional ‘if the collapse were started at the base of the building’ – if the supports at the base of the building were cut, it would have collapse bottom-up like a controlled demolition (or WTC7) – that’s just basic physics. And what did you say about premises?
Any controlled demolition must still obey the laws of physics.
An ‘excited utterance’ might be admissible testimony when someone makes a confession, but it doesn’t make for expert scientific opinions. There is no way of knowing if any of the people who heard explosions could tell the difference between, say, a cutter charge and an electrical transformer blowing.
I just finished watching the third part of Ryan Mackey on Hardfire. This segment is on modeling the collapse – I thought he presented a very good sketch of how to go about modeling something like the WTC collapse (and why things like Richard Gage’s ‘cardboard box’ model don’t provide any insight into the physics). In retrospect, I should have discussed my modeling methodology before trying to present the results in this discussion, but I obviously severely underestimated Bob’s stubbornness and ignorance (and never gave a seconds thought about being questioned on using physics that have been understood for more than a century…).
p.s. The debate between Dave Thomas and Richard Gage is tomorrow night (10pm pacific time Saturday) on Coast to Coast.
Bob,
You might want to compare Ryan Mackey’s presentation with Dr. Harrit’s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjwPIsTEulg
WARNING: If you watch Dr. Harrit’s lecture that’s 1:42 of your life you will never get back! Also, the first few minutes are in German, but the rest of the talk is in English.
Watch all of these (I’ve watched everything but the third Mackey video which I will be watching shortly) and tell me which one of these gentlemen has more scientific credibility…
By the way, there is going to be a debate on Coast to Coast tomorrow (actually 1 am eastern time tonight, I believe) between Dave Thomas of New Mexicans for Science and Reason and Richard Gage of Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. Someone on the JREF forum said you can listen for free (live) at
http://wokv.com
Just click the ‘listen live’ button at the top of the page. I’ll try to find a link afterwards if it gets posted…
Here is a three part (1/2 hour each) series on the physics of 9/11 with Ryan Mackey (of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Very interesting…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2542809949154243077
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2636718609916624673#docid=8184528465256118271
Slarti: If the material ignites at 430°C in an inert atmosphere, then conclusion 7 would be pretty strong”
Explain why. What’s the correlation you’re attempting to draw between ignition temp in the absence of an inert atmosphere and the fact that the material reacted the way it did?
Many materials will ignite in air, relatively few are energetic in its absence. Also, I believe that it would have been significant to show if the power per mass v. temperature profile changed in the absence of oxygen. (Incidentally, while the profile of the chips is similar to the super-thermite profile from the literature, I would by no means call it a spot on match.)
I get the idea (possibly mistaken) from your posts that you believe these energetic chips give off an unusually large amount of energy so let’s look into that – figure 30 in the paper shows the energy per unit mass of the samples, commercial thermite, TNT, and some other explosives. Two of the samples are lower than TNT (which is higher than thermite) and two are higher, so let’s use TNT for comparison. According to wikipedia, TNT produces 4.6 MJ per kg. How much energy does combustion produce? Well, at the low end, you’ve got damp peat at 6 MJ per kg – that’s right, damp peat gives off more energy when it is burned than TNT does when it explodes (or thermite does when it burns). Some other materials – wood 15 MJ/kg, carbon 32.8 MJ/kg, diesel fuel 45 MJ/kg, hydrogen 141.8 MJ/kg. What separates an explosive from something you can use in a bonfire is the rate at which the reaction occurs – something that this study unfortunately doesn’t measure… Another reason this paper isn’t being taken seriously by scientists.
How does the fact that the material ignited at 430 °C in air, in lieu of an inert atmosphere, bear any relevance on the nature in which burned? If the material ignited at 900 °C and reacted less vigorously it would still exhibit the properties of commercial thermite. So what are you saying?
As I said, many things combust in the neighborhood of 430°C in the presence of oxygen – the test showed a curve similar to a thermite curve – why wasn’t there a curve for a chip of the paint used on the WTC steel (or anything else) for comparison? This isn’t just something that would be nice – it’s something that is necessary to support the claim made by the paper. There is no way to evaluate the quality of the match between the two curves without something else for comparison.
Slarti: “ as it is… I fail to see how this point is relevant to questioning if a particular type of paint might account for the flakes
What type of paint, when ignited, is capable of creating molten spheres of iron?
Iron microspheres are created by many different things. Dr. Jones has identified many different signatures of microspheres in the dust which indicates many different sources (which is kind of a problem when using them as evidence of the use of thermite).
And again here:
I said: “Then there’s the MEK reasoning. He says “it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum.” What does that sentence mean? Compare with the quote he pulled from that ‘Italian document’: “Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum”
Slarti: “I would take it to mean that MEK reacts with elemental aluminum – implying that the absence of such a reaction makes it unlikely that the sample contained it.”
That’s what you would take it to mean, but that’s not what he said. His sentence about elemental aluminum was meaningless. And your comment is not supported by the XED analysis.
The writer was not a native English speaker – I gave my interpretation of the quote, if you think you have a better interpretation, let’s hear it.
And when I show that Enrico’s “logical conclusion” is not supported by the XED analysis:
Slarti: “It seems to me that this implies a lack of oxidized aluminum, but says nothing regarding aluminum in other chemical compounds.”
Justify that statement. Unless you’re an expert in reading XED’s I fail to comprehend how you can make such a sweeping generalization and keep a straight face.
First of all, I prefaced my statement with ‘it seems to me’, so it is completely correct (since that was certainly my impression) rather than a sweeping generalization – and it doesn’t require an expert at reading XED’s to realize that aluminum can be a) oxidized; b) elemental; or c)in some other molecule. If it’s not oxidized, it is not necessarily elemental, it could be part of some other compound.
I said: “And then there’s the DSC issue. Enrico says the tests should have been conducted in an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon; simply because thermite does not require an external oxidizer.”
Slarti: “The point is that many things will burn in the presence of an external oxidizer while far fewer display energetic properties in its absence.”
Again, regale me with your thoughts on the correlation between the ignition temp of 430 deg C and the presence of air.
Again, the problem is that many things will ignite at 430°C in the presence of air. Very few will ignite in the absence of air.
Explain how the presence of air is a controlling factor in any reaction resembling that of commercial or super-thermite.
Because being energetic in the absence of oxygen is one of the more unique properties of thermitic materials.
Not even oxygen, but just plain old 80% Nitrogen air. Was it the air that created those molten iron spheres? Really?
I don’t know what created the spheres, but Dr. Jones’ work on microspheres as evidence for thermite has been pretty well debunked.
Slarti: Not conducting the tests changes what could have been strong evidence in favor of their conclusions into mediocre evidence of limited significance.
Show me why.
I have above – they demonstrated that a property of the chips is similar to a property of super-thermite. They didn’t demonstrate that the property was unique to super-thermite (something that they could have done by merely using an inert atmosphere). Once again, finding something that was energetic under the circumstances of their test would not have been difficult (in fact, a chip of wood would produce three times as much energy as thermite).
Slarti: “You’re missing the point – just about everything will oxidize in the presence of air at a sufficient temperature – that’s why their results mean very little. On the other hand, showing that something has a ‘built-in’ oxidizer vastly reduces the possibilities…”
No, you’re missing the point; not everything will release enough energy upon ignition to create molten elemental iron spheres with an XED signature matching those produced by commercial thermite:
And when Dr. Jones identifies all of the sources of microspheres in the WTC dust and determines how to tell the difference between the ones resulting from thermitic reactions and the rest, I’ll care about iron microspheres.
The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust.”
Again, you’ve got to track down all the significant sources of microspheres in the dust – especially since Dr. Jones’ own evidence indicates multiple sources of the microspheres in the dust.
Slarti: “I must have missed the control tests on flakes produced in some manner from thermitic material… “
Are you Evelyn Wood? Did you read the paper? They’re just guessing? WTF?
Do you understand the purpose of having controls in science? You have controls in order to determine what sort of behavior is typical and what is unusual. Without them, you have a very poor scientific argument at best (certainly not an extraordinary one). Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit both understand this – why do you think that they didn’t do the work necessary to make a strong scientific argument?
Slarti: I wouldn’t make a claim about how the corrosion-proofing paint on the steel reacts unless I had some kind of information to back it up,”
Then why do you represent it as strongly as Byron? You’re confessing to throwing up a red herring here.
It was suggested by multiple people as a possible source of Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit’s red chips and was apparently painted on all of the structural steel in the WTC. Not eliminating such a source (or any other, except for some unspecified ‘paint’) is a huge, glaring oversight in the paper. I really don’t understand how you can see this as anything other than shoddy science – that must be one hell of a confirmation bias.
Slarti: “Performing a few tests with an unknown number of unspecified ‘ordinary’ paints is a far cry from systematic testing of paints actually present in the collapse. And why wasn’t a DSC test performed on any paint chips?”
The paint samples were measured for specific resistivity; ability to withstand soaking in MEK and characteristics upon ignition. Paint is highly resistive; paint does not hold up well in MEK and paint does not create molten spheres of elemental iron upon ignition, it simply reduces to ash.
One unspecified type of paint – Dr. Greening gave a list of half a dozen potential sources of microspheres in the dust. Paint is only one possible source raised for the red chips. A competent scientist would have addressed all of them in a methodical manner. Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit’s causal treatment of this issue speaks volumes to their scientific credibility.
Since the general characteristics of paint do not fall within the category of thermite, the only person not meeting their burden here is you – in explaining why it is more likely than less likely that paint could react like thermite.
It’s their job to demonstrate that the chips have the same characteristics of thermite and that those characteristics are unique – they showed they probably share some characteristics and didn’t make any effort to show that those characteristics were unique (besides saying they were, which has apparently convinced you – good ole’ confirmation bias).
Slarti: “One of the big questions left unaddressed by the paper is ‘how could the observed chips be produced from some sort of demolition charges in the tower?’”
The paper DOES NOT discuss the use of the subject of analysis; the paper simply analyzes the substance in itself. Accordingly it is not a question left unaddressed; as you already know.
Again, this is another flaw in the paper – the themitic materials are only of significance if they were used in demolition charges. Establishing the significance of your findings is pretty basic in science, when you don’t do it, your paper gets ignored by anyone serious – like Harrit, et al.
Slarti: If the material ignites at 430°C in an inert atmosphere, then conclusion 7 would be pretty strong”
Explain why. What’s the correlation you’re attempting to draw between ignition temp in the absence of an inert atmosphere and the fact that the material reacted the way it did?
“As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.”
How does the fact that the material ignited at 430 °C in air, in lieu of an inert atmosphere, bear any relevance on the nature in which burned? If the material ignited at 900 °C and reacted less vigorously it would still exhibit the properties of commercial thermite. So what are you saying?
Slarti: “ as it is… I fail to see how this point is relevant to questioning if a particular type of paint might account for the flakes
What type of paint, when ignited, is capable of creating molten spheres of iron?
And again here:
I said: “Then there’s the MEK reasoning. He says “it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum.” What does that sentence mean? Compare with the quote he pulled from that ‘Italian document’: “Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum”
Slarti: “I would take it to mean that MEK reacts with elemental aluminum – implying that the absence of such a reaction makes it unlikely that the sample contained it.”
That’s what you would take it to mean, but that’s not what he said. His sentence about elemental aluminum was meaningless. And your comment is not supported by the XED analysis.
And when I show that Enrico’s “logical conclusion” is not supported by the XED analysis:
“The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles.”
Slarti: “It seems to me that this implies a lack of oxidized aluminum, but says nothing regarding aluminum in other chemical compounds.”
Justify that statement. Unless you’re an expert in reading XED’s I fail to comprehend how you can make such a sweeping generalization and keep a straight face.
I said: “And then there’s the DSC issue. Enrico says the tests should have been conducted in an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon; simply because thermite does not require an external oxidizer.”
Slarti: “The point is that many things will burn in the presence of an external oxidizer while far fewer display energetic properties in its absence.”
Again, regale me with your thoughts on the correlation between the ignition temp of 430 deg C and the presence of air. Explain how the presence of air is a controlling factor in any reaction resembling that of commercial or super-thermite. Not even oxygen, but just plain old 80% Nitrogen air. Was it the air that created those molten iron spheres? Really?
Slarti: Not conducting the tests changes what could have been strong evidence in favor of their conclusions into mediocre evidence of limited significance.
Show me why.
Slarti: “You’re missing the point – just about everything will oxidize in the presence of air at a sufficient temperature – that’s why their results mean very little. On the other hand, showing that something has a ‘built-in’ oxidizer vastly reduces the possibilities…”
No, you’re missing the point; not everything will release enough energy upon ignition to create molten elemental iron spheres with an XED signature matching those produced by commercial thermite:
“After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust.”
Slarti: “I must have missed the control tests on flakes produced in some manner from thermitic material… “
Are you Evelyn Wood? Did you read the paper? They’re just guessing? WTF?
Slarti: I wouldn’t make a claim about how the corrosion-proofing paint on the steel reacts unless I had some kind of information to back it up,”
Then why do you represent it as strongly as Byron? You’re confessing to throwing up a red herring here.
Slarti: “Performing a few tests with an unknown number of unspecified ‘ordinary’ paints is a far cry from systematic testing of paints actually present in the collapse. And why wasn’t a DSC test performed on any paint chips?”
The paint samples were measured for specific resistivity; ability to withstand soaking in MEK and characteristics upon ignition. Paint is highly resistive; paint does not hold up well in MEK and paint does not create molten spheres of elemental iron upon ignition, it simply reduces to ash.
Since the general characteristics of paint do not fall within the category of thermite, the only person not meeting their burden here is you – in explaining why it is more likely than less likely that paint could react like thermite.
Slarti: “One of the big questions left unaddressed by the paper is ‘how could the observed chips be produced from some sort of demolition charges in the tower?’”
The paper DOES NOT discuss the use of the subject of analysis; the paper simply analyzes the substance in itself. Accordingly it is not a question left unaddressed; as you already know.
Slarti: “So a secondary charge, detonated before the primary charge had finished exploding, was necessary to ‘move’ the cut beams (why did they need to be ‘moved’?”
Surely you don’t expect a building to fall at nearly free fall speed/acceleration without a little push.
Slarti: “Bazant, et al. includes extensive calculations which show that the observed timing is consistent with a ‘natural’ collapse. “
Bazant et. Al. would have their readers believe that the top section of the building had enough energy, like a pile driver, to crush the untouched structure below. First it crushes down then it crushes up? And the Bazant analysis completely ignores transfer of momentum; i.e. that any increased force on the lower section of the building must be accompanied by a decrease in the momentum of the falling block. Instead, the block kept accelerating. Why? Because the opposing force that had been holding up the building for thirty years was SUDDENLY AND UNIFORMLY reduced to .36mg! Thus this block was ‘given license’ to accelerate at a rate of 64% free fall.
Slarti: “If it were the result of a controlled demolition, why wasn’t the collapse closer to free-fall speed?”
See above.
Slarti: “Fine, can you give me a reason that Harrit, et al. should be excused from the burden of justifying their conclusions?”
Judging from your anemic objections above, it appears they did. If you’re going to cite authors who dispute the findings of the paper, I suggest you read them as thoroughly as you demand of me before making the empty comments you made above.
Bob posted:
Slarti: “They may have headed towards a hole in the primary radar, but they didn’t actually get there – when the transponders were turned off,”
Yes they did reach the hole Slarti, and yes it did continue back into primary radar coverage making extrapolation of the path pretty simple. It’s no conspiracy theory, it was the concern of the folks watching the radar that day; as in how the hell did those pilots know where to fly. Those aren’t my words, those are the words of at least one of the folks who were reading the scopes that day. But of course, you must know better than them.
Slarti: “Holes in the radar, equivalent airspeed, explosives pulverized the concrete, thermite melted metal in the rubble – you hop on the bandwagons of various theories without doing any kind of analysis of the scientific merits of the theory you’re promoting”
What I told you about holes in the radar is not scientific theory, it’s pure observed fact.
Hard to count it as fact when it is contradicted by the NTSB flight path report – if you look at page four of that report, you’ll see the data of altitude vs. time. Every one of those little triangles represents radar waves emitted by the primary radars that bounced off AA11 and returned (hence ‘primary radar returns’). If the plane was ever in a ‘hole in the primary radars’ then why do we have a record of the plane being detected by the primary radars for the whole time?
Re ‘equivalent air speed, your hasty dismissal of the subject is horseshit; in fact, I’ll probably leave that argument with you and the pilots who made the argument.
That would be the pilots that didn’t know that the formula they were using was only valid for speeds below 0.6 Mach? (They were using it on a speed of 0.99 Mach) Not to mention that they were using the NTSB values for the airspeed, rather than the lower (and likely much more accurate) speeds from the NIST report. Those two observations completely invalidate their entire argument, but if you would like to argue that their naive, invalid calculations mean something, feel free…
Per thermite melted the metal in the rubble; it sure as shit fits better than any theory you’ve proposed.
No it doesn’t and you’ve yet to give any argument at all as to how thermitic materials could have induced the collapse, sustained the collapse, melted metal in the rubble, and kept it molten for six months (let alone estimating the total amount of material present and how much of it exploded/was ignited when).
Slarti: “So everyone who hasn’t spoken out against the paper accepts it?”
No, I just await Greening’s response with baited breath.
What you seem completely unwilling to accept is that in science arguments stand or fall on their own merits – it doesn’t matter whether criticism comes from an anonymous web poster or a Nobel laureate, all that matters is whether or not the criticism is valid. I’ve raised issues with the paper and posted links to issues raised by others, but you have not seen fit to explain why the authors shouldn’t be held to the same burden of proof that applies in any other scientific investigation.
Slarti: “It’s not ‘nano-fucking-thermite’ just because you say it is – Harrit, et al. didn’t make their case. But don’t take my word for it, check this out. Since you probably wont go and read this..
I did check it out, and lo and behold it, unlike you, is specific in its claims. It fits the genre of scientific refutation quite well. I take it this is the essence of peer review;
Peer review happens before publication (and was sketchy at best in the case of this paper as I have shown – in particular, Dr. Harrit claims to know who two of the referees are). The goal of peer review is to vet the paper in order to avoid, for instance, publishing a paper that includes unjustified claims.
seeing how well one’s work stands up to criticism. Nonetheless, after one read of Enrico’s blog entry, I already had a few problems.
First there was this comment; “Could this type of paint peel off, forming the small flakes found in Ground Zero dust?”
Enrico fails to refute Point 7 of the Harrit paper at all.
If the material ignites at 430°C in an inert atmosphere, then conclusion 7 would be pretty strong – as it is… I fail to see how this point is relevant to questioning if a particular type of paint might account for the flakes (furthermore, the fact that other potential sources for the flakes were not ruled out is a failure to meet part of the burden of proof incurred by the paper’s conclusions – that makes it highly relevant criticism).
Then there’s the MEK reasoning. He says “it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum.” What does that sentence mean? Compare with the quote he pulled from that ‘Italian document’: “Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum”
I would take it to mean that MEK reacts with elemental aluminum – implying that the absence of such a reaction makes it unlikely that the sample contained it.
He goes on to say: “The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive.”
Yet his ‘logical conclusion’ is not supported by the observations from the XED’s:
“The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles.”
It seems to me that this implies a lack of oxidized aluminum, but says nothing regarding aluminum in other chemical compounds.
The obvious problem here is where is the warrant for hypothesis of “no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds” when the XED clearly shows the contradictory? Meaning, if the MEK did react with the aluminum, the XED would have shown such, and if it didn’t, then the existence of non-oxidized aluminum removes the warrant for Enrico’s hypothesis. I could be missing something, perhaps there’s something amiss in the translation, but the skeletal outline of his reasoning is troubling.
And then there’s the DSC issue. Enrico says the tests should have been conducted in an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon; simply because thermite does not require an external oxidizer.
The point is that many things will burn in the presence of an external oxidizer while far fewer display energetic properties in its absence. Not conducting the tests changes what could have been strong evidence in favor of their conclusions into mediocre evidence of limited significance.
Perhaps further tests are in order.
A competent scientist would have known that those tests needed to be performed BEFORE publishing a paper with extraordinary claims not supported by the evidence.
However, as your buds at Mythbusters know, thermite reacts in ways that not even the presence of air can deny .
You’re missing the point – just about everything will oxidize in the presence of air at a sufficient temperature – that’s why their results mean very little. On the other hand, showing that something has a ‘built-in’ oxidizer vastly reduces the possibilities…
Think your Mythbuster buddies would ever claim that “the corrosion-proofing paint on the steel” reacts like thermite?
I must have missed the control tests on flakes produced in some manner from thermitic material… I wouldn’t make a claim about how the corrosion-proofing paint on the steel reacts unless I had some kind of information to back it up, but it’s either scientific incompetence or negligence to make the claims they did without determining if materials present in the collapse exhibited the same kind of behavior.
I know you would, but would they?
As usual, you’re wrong. And the point is not about any claims that I might make, the point is that Harrit, et al. didn’t satisfy their burden of proof. Performing a few tests with an unknown number of unspecified ‘ordinary’ paints is a far cry from systematic testing of paints actually present in the collapse. And why wasn’t a DSC test performed on any paint chips? That certainly seems highly relevant to me (in order to show that they had different profiles than the samples).
I’m thinking the one in the cap would be the first to ask “how the hell did the builders get permits to put this stuff on the steel? And for that matter, why didn’t the entire North Tower go up in flames during the fire of February 13, 1975?”
Finally, who is Enrico the blogger and what have others had to say about his critique. This I’m looking forward to reading.
Slarti: If the samples are from detonated devices
Again with ‘the devices.’ WTF are you talking about?
By ‘devices’ I was referring to any sort of deliberately placed manufactured thermitic charges. One of the big questions left unaddressed by the paper is ‘how could the observed chips be produced from some sort of demolition charges in the tower?’
Slarti: why is there still active thermitic material
Quick guess? Thermite was used as the cutter while ordinary explosives were used to move the cut beams away; blowing unignited chips all over.
So a secondary charge, detonated before the primary charge had finished exploding, was necessary to ‘move’ the cut beams (why did they need to be ‘moved’?) and all this happened without producing any visible or audible effects proximate to the collapse zone. I suppose this theory is based on your extensive knowledge of the field of controlled demolition…
Slarti: “The times and modes of collapse are all consistent with a lack of explosives (or incendiaries).”
Just as the times and modes of collapse would be consistent with an act of God in the absence of any further evidence.
No, there is solid evidence regarding the time and mode of collapse (seismic and video records) and the mode of collapse is exactly what would be expected from a gravitational collapse following a progressive failure (incidentally, controlled demolition is just another way of initiating a gravitational collapse). Bazant, et al. includes extensive calculations which show that the observed timing is consistent with a ‘natural’ collapse. If it were the result of a controlled demolition, why wasn’t the collapse closer to free-fall speed?
Slarti: “Why should anyone believe you and take the word of an unethical hack known for shoddy science and making conclusions the evidence doesn’t justify when his team makes grandiose assertions that they can’t back up and is shown to be using substandard methods? Sorry Bob, but if you and Dr. Jones had any credibility left, it’s gone now.”
Why are you so desperate to denigrate Jones at the expense of being relevant?
😉
You know damn well it’s not Jones paper. That’s Harrit’s paper. Kindly direct your ad hominem attacks accordingly.
I have given evidence to support all of my attacks on Dr. Jones and his work. This is one of his papers – his name is on it so we can safely assume he supports its claims. Furthermore, the lead author, Dr. Harrit, describes himself as a part of Dr. Jones’ team. This is not in any way a paper by an independent lab. Therefore criticism of the quality of Dr. Jones’ methods and ethics are certainly relevant to this paper. And I don’t believe you can point out any criticism that I have made of Dr. Jones that I did not support with some sort of evidence…
BTW, I don’t ask that anyone believe me or take my word; I ask only that they merely use reason in lieu of colorful metaphors like yours.
Fine, can you give me a reason that Harrit, et al. should be excused from the burden of justifying their conclusions? Throughout this debate I have provided reasoned argument based on physical laws and scientific principles and supported it with references. While you have repeatedly raised unsupported concern about my arguments and and citation, you have only infrequently tried to live up to the standards that you apply to me. There’s a word for that…
Bob,
Regarding your comment about me attributing this paper to Dr. Jones – he is a named author on the paper and in all likelihood the head of the group that wrote it. Referring to the paper as ‘his’ and assuming he agrees with its conclusions are perfectly appropriate.
Bob said:
“Finally, if you’re just going to fish for random complaints about the paper as posted to a blog by casual observers[Scientific criticism stands or falls on its merits, not its authors.], in lieu of actually engaging in a discussion, i.e. responding to what I write, then I’m afraid we can no longer say you are engaged in any meaningful argumentation.”
I have raised the important, substantive issue that the authors have not provided sufficient evidence to justify their claims – you have failed to argue that that they should not have been required to do this (or that they have shown how their samples could have resulted from thermitic materials and that they couldn’t have resulted from materials known to be present in the collapse. This isn’t a minor issue and the failure to address these issues constitutes a major defect in the paper, rendering it, in my opinion (and in the opinion of others), impotent in justifying its conclusions. Furthermore, it has been my practice throughout this debate to address everything that you write line by line while you seem to feel free to ignore anything you don’t want to address. So I guess that, unlike me, you haven’t been engaged in any meaningful argumentation in some time…
Slarti: Just so you don’t think that I am the only one who doesn’t think that the paper provided adequate support to justify its conclusions, here is a post from that thread (emphasis added):
Is that all you’re going to do; copy and paste posts from forums that are in such haste to bash Jones they can’t even get the primary author’s name right? Pretty sad in comparison to Enrico’s analysis.
Slarti: “they need to do their due diligence and turn their weak case that the chips MIGHT be thermitic into a real case that the chips MUST be thermitic (in particular, doing the DSC tests in an inert atmosphere in order to show that the materials were energetic in the absence of air would be a big step in the right direction). ”
I brought that up in my previous post, which you completely ignored; more evidence of your desire to ‘talk over’ rather than discuss.
Nonetheless, here’s another chemical engineer’s take on the red/gray chips:
RADIO INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
Mark Basile: “The other interesting thing about these chips that really kind of shows you that they are the nano-thermite, is that when you take these small little chips and you ignite them… If you woulda take one and grind it up beforehand; just the red layer… There is no free iron in it. When I say free iron, like, you know, little beebees of iron metal, that exist in these. You know it’s iron oxide, it’s not free iron. But when you ignite one, and then you break it up afterwards, you basically find these little droplets, although they’re not actually I mean, as a portion of the total volume of the chip they rather significant, but they’re still small because these chips are small. But you basically produce molten iron, which then when it cools down again becomes these droplets of iron. As well as the whole the nanostructure that I talked about there, kind of gets destroyed in large part during this combustion process, but some of it at the end is still there and all these inner chambers basically are coated with a very thin metallic layer after it freezes again, so… There is few interesting things that go on in them.”
Full interview transcript here:
http://911blogger.com/node/20998
Slarti: “The fact that Dr. Jones has not attempted to get independent verification of his results or …”
Your reading comprehension skills are atrocious. Harrit and Farrar are the lead authors; not Jones. You can’t be that intellectually lazy; or can you.
Finally, if you’re just going to fish for random complaints about the paper as posted to a blog by casual observers, in lieu of actually engaging in a discussion, i.e. responding to what I write, then I’m afraid we can no longer say you are engaged in any meaningful argumentation.
Since you haven’t raised any criticism of Bazant, et al. (except that an unrelated paper was written after it), I assume that you accept the conclusion that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit (if you’re in the process of formulating your scientific criticism of the paper, I’m sorry and I look forward to reading it). Here is a link to a thread on the JREF forum discussing the Harrit, et al. paper. Just so you don’t think that I am the only one who doesn’t think that the paper provided adequate support to justify its conclusions, here is a post from that thread (emphasis added):
As I said before extraordinary claims require extraordinary support. While the discussion on this thread is technical, it raises a myriad of issues that the paper didn’t deal with. If the authors want their claims to be taken seriously by scientists, then they need to do their due diligence and turn their weak case that the chips MIGHT be thermitic into a real case that the chips MUST be thermitic (in particular, doing the DSC tests in an inert atmosphere in order to show that the materials were energetic in the absence of air would be a big step in the right direction). They also need to make samples available to independent labs – an unverified study that has been shown to suffer from methodological deficiencies is never going to convince anyone (let alone scientists). The fact that Dr. Jones has not attempted to get independent verification of his results or conduct a more thorough, systematic analysis is a red flag to me that whatever his intent, it isn’t to convince experts that he is correct, but more likely to mislead credulous audiences into believing that he knows what he’s talking about.
I thought you might find this quote interesting…
One wonders why the editor-in-chief of the journal was not asked about the article before publication…
**”expense of being irrelevant?
Professor Pileni’s Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal
By Niels Harrit
After the paper entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology” (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).
Since the late 1980s, moreover, she has served as a consultant for the French Army and other military institutions. From 1990 to 1994, for example, she served as a consultant for the Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs (National Society for Powders and Explosives).
She could, therefore, have easily read our paper, and she surely did. But by denying that she had read it, she avoided the question that would have inevitably been put to her: ”What do you think of it?”
Faced with that question, she would have had two options. She could have criticized it, but that would have been difficult without inventing some artificial criticism, which she as a good scientist with an excellent reputation surely would not have wanted to do. The only other option would have been to acknowledge the soundness of our work and its conclusions. But this would have threatened her career.
Professor Pileni’s resignation from the journal provides an insight into the conditions for free speech at our universities and other academic institutions in the aftermath of 9/11. This situation is a mirror of western society as a whole—even though our academic institutions should be havens in which research is evaluated by its intrinsic excellence, not its political correctness.
In Professor Pileni’s country, France, the drive to curb the civil rights of professors at the universities is especially strong, and the fight is fierce.
I will conclude with two points. First, the cause of 9/11 truth is not one that she has taken up, and the course of action she chose was what she had to do to save her career. I harbor no ill feelings toward Professor Pileni for the choice she made.
Second, her resignation from the journal because of the publication of our paper implied nothing negative about the paper.
Indeed, the very fact that she offered no criticisms of it provided, implicitly, a positive evaluation—an acknowledgment that its methodology and conclusions could not credibly be challenged.
Go on Slarti, attack Harrit like you attack Jones….give in to the dark side…
Slarti: “They may have headed towards a hole in the primary radar, but they didn’t actually get there – when the transponders were turned off,”
Yes they did reach the hole Slarti, and yes it did continue back into primary radar coverage making extrapolation of the path pretty simple. It’s no conspiracy theory, it was the concern of the folks watching the radar that day; as in how the hell did those pilots know where to fly. Those aren’t my words, those are the words of at least one of the folks who were reading the scopes that day. But of course, you must know better than them.
Slarti: “Holes in the radar, equivalent airspeed, explosives pulverized the concrete, thermite melted metal in the rubble – you hop on the bandwagons of various theories without doing any kind of analysis of the scientific merits of the theory you’re promoting”
What I told you about holes in the radar is not scientific theory, it’s pure observed fact. Re ‘equivalent air speed, your hasty dismissal of the subject is horseshit; in fact, I’ll probably leave that argument with you and the pilots who made the argument. Per thermite melted the metal in the rubble; it sure as shit fits better than any theory you’ve proposed.
Slarti: “So everyone who hasn’t spoken out against the paper accepts it?”
No, I just await Greening’s response with baited breath.
Slarti: “It’s not ‘nano-fucking-thermite’ just because you say it is – Harrit, et al. didn’t make their case. But don’t take my word for it, check this out. Since you probably wont go and read this..
I did check it out, and lo and behold it, unlike you, is specific in its claims. It fits the genre of scientific refutation quite well. I take it this is the essence of peer review; seeing how well one’s work stands up to criticism. Nonetheless, after one read of Enrico’s blog entry, I already had a few problems.
First there was this comment; “Could this type of paint peel off, forming the small flakes found in Ground Zero dust?”
Enrico fails to refute Point 7 of the Harrit paper at all.
Then there’s the MEK reasoning. He says “it is well-established that MEK might react more or less violently with elemental aluminum.” What does that sentence mean? Compare with the quote he pulled from that ‘Italian document’: “Methyl ethyl ketone reacts with light metals, such as aluminum”
He goes on to say: “The logical conclusion is that one should therefore hypothesize the very opposite of what is claimed in the study, i.e., that there is no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds, or that elemental aluminum is present but in highly oxidized conditions and therefore scarcely reactive.”
Yet his ‘logical conclusion’ is not supported by the observations from the XED’s:
“The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles.”
The obvious problem here is where is the warrant for hypothesis of “no elemental aluminum in the compound and that aluminum is present in chemical bonds” when the XED clearly shows the contradictory? Meaning, if the MEK did react with the aluminum, the XED would have shown such, and if it didn’t, then the existence of non-oxidized aluminum removes the warrant for Enrico’s hypothesis. I could be missing something, perhaps there’s something amiss in the translation, but the skeletal outline of his reasoning is troubling.
And then there’s the DSC issue. Enrico says the tests should have been conducted in an inert gas such as nitrogen or argon; simply because thermite does not require an external oxidizer. Perhaps further tests are in order. However, as your buds at Mythbusters know, thermite reacts in ways that not even the presence of air can deny . Think your Mythbuster buddies would ever claim that “the corrosion-proofing paint on the steel” reacts like thermite? I know you would, but would they? I’m thinking the one in the cap would be the first to ask “how the hell did the builders get permits to put this stuff on the steel? And for that matter, why didn’t the entire North Tower go up in flames during the fire of February 13, 1975?”
Finally, who is Enrico the blogger and what have others had to say about his critique. This I’m looking forward to reading.
Slarti: If the samples are from detonated devices
Again with ‘the devices.’ WTF are you talking about?
Slarti: why is there still active thermitic material
Quick guess? Thermite was used as the cutter while ordinary explosives were used to move the cut beams away; blowing unignited chips all over.
Slarti: “The times and modes of collapse are all consistent with a lack of explosives (or incendiaries).”
Just as the times and modes of collapse would be consistent with an act of God in the absence of any further evidence.
Slarti: “Why should anyone believe you and take the word of an unethical hack known for shoddy science and making conclusions the evidence doesn’t justify when his team makes grandiose assertions that they can’t back up and is shown to be using substandard methods? Sorry Bob, but if you and Dr. Jones had any credibility left, it’s gone now.”
Why are you so desperate to denigrate Jones at the expense of
being relevant? You know damn well it’s not Jones paper. That’s Harrit’s paper. Kindly direct your ad hominem attacks accordingly.
BTW, I don’t ask that anyone believe me or take my word; I ask only that they merely use reason in lieu of colorful metaphors like yours.
By the way, here’s a translation of a Danish news story about Dr. Peleni resigning as editor of Bentham.
Slarti: “I don’t have to chart the courses of the planes myself, the NTSB did it for me using data from the primary radar.
You really have a knack for speaking before you have a grasp of all the facts.
I can’t hold a candle to you in that regard.
Slarti: “Neither of the planes went into a hole in the primary radar and there is data to prove it (unless you think the NTSB flight plan studies were faked). And what do you think I was lying about? I looked at the figure you indicated and, as I recall, the nearest hole in the primary radar coverage was over New Hampshire or Vermont and as you can see in the flight path, AA11 stayed in the airspace of Massachusetts and New York.”
You’re lying in that you represent you know what you’re talking about. When I say chart it out, I mean overlay the flight path onto the Bussolari map. Example, for five minutes after the hijack, AAL11 made a b-line to a hole in the primary radar, just below the tri-section between Massachusetts, Vermont & New York, where it thence turned off its transponder. They weren’t good; they were perfect! Those planes clearly exploited information and mapping that was not available to ANY PILOTS that day. And for you to sit there and pretend that means nothing would be the same as saying the British would have simply been “lucky” had Arnold carried out his plan of giving up West Point by replacing a link in the chain across the Hudson the very day the Brits happened to decide to sail right through it.
They may have headed towards a hole in the primary radar, but they didn’t actually get there – when the transponders were turned off, the position indicated by the transponder was replaced with position data from the primary radars. AA11 was painted several times a minute (much of the time it was in the coverage of multiple primary radars) for the remainder of its flight. It was never in a hole in the primary radar – unless you’re alleging that the flight plan study by the NTSB is faked. Just a hint: no one will believe that the planes hid in holes in the primary radar if the data shows they were never out of primary radar coverage.
This is one of your problems – you buy into any conspiracy theory if you think it might provide support for conclusion you’ve jumped to no matter how illogical and unscientific. Holes in the radar, equivalent airspeed, explosives pulverized the concrete, thermite melted metal in the rubble – you hop on the bandwagons of various theories without doing any kind of analysis of the scientific merits of the theory you’re promoting – why do you do that?. Don’t you ever think that you should use something other than your confirmation bias in order to determine what is true?
Slarti: “The paper establishes that there is no reason to suspect controlled demolition based on observations of the collapse.”
And the Harrit paper shows real evidence that must now be accounted for. Even Greening knows that; witness his acceptance by silence.
So everyone who hasn’t spoken out against the paper accepts it? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. As you will see, I don’t need to rely on Dr. Greening to debunk the Harrit paper.
Slarti: “Really. What you said was:
“The non-fungibility of the nano-thermite makes it more unique than DNA.”
Slarti: I believe this to be a ridiculous statement since DNA is a blueprint for an individual and super-thermite is an unusually fine mixture of a handful of compounds, but let’s examine further.
No, let’s stop here to point out your inability to grasp the idea of fungability and the authentication of real evidence. The issue is not how many compounds there, the issue is can the item of real evidence be replaced or altered? As I said before, since you need go no further than a cotton swab inside someone’s cheek, DNA samples are readily replaceable. Because of this, we take the further step of establishing some chain of custody. However, when an item of real evidence is so unique that it can’t be replaced or altered, as with nano-fucking-thermite, we simply ask is the thing what the proponent says it is.
It’s not ‘nano-fucking-thermite’ just because you say it is – Harrit, et al. didn’t make their case. But don’t take my word for it, check this out. Since you probably wont go and read this (after all if you did you would have to admit that you can’t answer the criticisms it raises), here’s the abstract:
In case you missed it there, in addition to the shortcomings I’ve already pointed out, it turns out that the experimental methodology is as shoddy as the justification of the conclusions. As an added bonus, it identifies a possible source of the chips Dr. Jones found – the corrosion-proofing paint on the steel. I think Byron has been suggesting this for months.
Slarti: The Harrit paper gives references to show that super-thermite exists and alleges that it is non-fungible (nothing wrong with saying that, but it’s not supported by evidence in the paper).
You can’t keep your bullshit straight can you? Show me where the Harrit paper says what you just said above. I’m getting real sick of this.
Not nearly as sick as I am. Your paper that is supposed to ‘shift the burden of proof in an unprecedented way’ turns out to be as scientifically lacking as the rest of Dr. Jones work. Face it, you’ve got nothing in the way of evidence except debunked conspiracy theories and substandard science.
Slarti: “It then shows that the chips could be super-thermite without considering how the chips could have ended up in the dust if they were part of a super-thermite device.”
Consider how the chips could have ended up in the dust? Gee, it couldn’t be that it’s because it’s what’s left over after blowing up with the WTC, could it?
If the samples are from detonated devices why is there still active thermitic material (if there even is – the critique above shows that because they didn’t do their experiments in an inert atmosphere, they couldn’t tell if the oxidizer was present in the material (like thermite) or was oxygen in the air).
Call me silly, but evidence of nano-thermite in the dust
Sorry, but this paper is only getting farther from proving that there was nano-thermite in the dust – unless you can defend their methods from the specific accusations of shoddy science.
seems to answer questions like 1. how did all three collapses begin with nearly zero resistance instantaneously and uniformly;
The times and modes of collapse are all consistent with a lack of explosives (or incendiaries). Read the Bazant paper (if you want to dispute it, you’ve got your work cut out for you – the paper is pretty tight). Or do papers in respected journals not count if you don’t like their conclusions?
2. and how did all that molten metal collect in pools of the footprints of said buildings.
I’ve said this many, many times, but explosives (and even incendiaries) are not good candidates for sustained heat nor do explosives tend to melt metal. Of course being totally wrong has never stopped you from spreading your ignorant notions before…
Real evidence has a tendency to tie up the loose ends quite nicely; doesn’t it?
Yes, and if you look at the real evidence and the real science, you’ll find that your theory isn’t a loose end, it’s garbage.
But if you insist on arguing how Aether was the cause of those collapses, who am I to stop you.
I think these attempts to accuse me of what you’re doing are cute – the only thing that’s lost in the Aether is your magical super-duper-thermite.
Slarti: It does not address the question of whether or not the chips are fungible.
You’re so full of crap you can’t make up your mind.
The paper never addresses the source of the chips other than to assert that they are thermite without the evidence to prove it.
Slarti: Up to this point, everything is fine – a little prosaic maybe, but fine
Prosaic; another new shiny word for ya; sing it magpie!
Oh no, you wound me with your words! Here’s a simple word to describe your arguments: wrong.
Slarti: What makes this conclusion extraordinary is the conclusion in Bazant that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit.
I’m sorry, which way did Bazant say the Aether wind was flowing that day?
I’m still waiting for any criticism of that article… or do you think if you make fun of it in lieu of substantive criticism it will go away? Why do you feel that you can ignore the (scientifically sound) conclusions in Bazant, but that the substandard science and overblown conclusions in the Harrit paper must be the gospel truth? In any case, until you can come up with an argument as to why Bazant’s conclusions are invalid, I’m going to assume that controlled demolition theories have no scientific merit.
Slarti: “I don’t think that the paper made the case for what they claimed. I have explained specifically what they failed to show and discussed why I think it is important.”
Then we are in the presence of true genius. In just a few days you single-handedly figured out something that the peer-review process did not.
Well, it turns out that the peer-review process at Bentham isn’t quite up to snuff. I guess that I was right in questioning Bentham’s peer review process…
Since you’re obviously smarter than those who peer-reviewed the paper you should raise your opinion to greater heights and trump the paper with a peer reviewed paper of your own; otherwise, well, what else can we say about your opinion?
Bob, I’ve provided the reasoning behind my opinion and now I’ve provided a link to specific, technical criticism of the science in the Harrit paper. I’ve told you that peer review is not a magic guarantee of quality and I’ve raised a host of reasons why the Harrit paper isn’t the smoking gun you seem to think it is. Clearly you are unable to defend the paper from this substantive attack. Why should anyone believe you and take the word of an unethical hack known for shoddy science and making conclusions the evidence doesn’t justify when his team makes grandiose assertions that they can’t back up and is shown to be using substandard methods? Sorry Bob, but if you and Dr. Jones had any credibility left, it’s gone now.
Slarti: “I don’t have to chart the courses of the planes myself, the NTSB did it for me using data from the primary radar.
You really have a knack for speaking before you have a grasp of all the facts.
Slarti: “Neither of the planes went into a hole in the primary radar and there is data to prove it (unless you think the NTSB flight plan studies were faked). And what do you think I was lying about? I looked at the figure you indicated and, as I recall, the nearest hole in the primary radar coverage was over New Hampshire or Vermont and as you can see in the flight path, AA11 stayed in the airspace of Massachusetts and New York.”
You’re lying in that you represent you know what you’re talking about. When I say chart it out, I mean overlay the flight path onto the Bussolari map. Example, for five minutes after the hijack, AAL11 made a b-line to a hole in the primary radar, just below the tri-section between Massachusetts, Vermont & New York, where it thence turned off its transponder. They weren’t good; they were perfect! Those planes clearly exploited information and mapping that was not available to ANY PILOTS that day. And for you to sit there and pretend that means nothing would be the same as saying the British would have simply been “lucky” had Arnold carried out his plan of giving up West Point by replacing a link in the chain across the Hudson the very day the Brits happened to decide to sail right through it.
Slarti: “The paper establishes that there is no reason to suspect controlled demolition based on observations of the collapse.”
And the Harrit paper shows real evidence that must now be accounted for. Even Greening knows that; witness his acceptance by silence.
Slarti: “Really. What you said was:
“The non-fungibility of the nano-thermite makes it more unique than DNA.”
Slarti: I believe this to be a ridiculous statement since DNA is a blueprint for an individual and super-thermite is an unusually fine mixture of a handful of compounds, but let’s examine further.
No, let’s stop here to point out your inability to grasp the idea of fungability and the authentication of real evidence. The issue is not how many compounds there, the issue is can the item of real evidence be replaced or altered? As I said before, since you need go no further than a cotton swab inside someone’s cheek, DNA samples are readily replaceable. Because of this, we take the further step of establishing some chain of custody. However, when an item of real evidence is so unique that it can’t be replaced or altered, as with nano-fucking-thermite, we simply ask is the thing what the proponent says it is.
Slarti: The Harrit paper gives references to show that super-thermite exists and alleges that it is non-fungible (nothing wrong with saying that, but it’s not supported by evidence in the paper).
You can’t keep your bullshit straight can you? Show me where the Harrit paper says what you just said above. I’m getting real sick of this.
Slarti: “It then shows that the chips could be super-thermite without considering how the chips could have ended up in the dust if they were part of a super-thermite device.”
Consider how the chips could have ended up in the dust? Gee, it couldn’t be that it’s because it’s what’s left over after blowing up with the WTC, could it? Call me silly, but evidence of nano-thermite in the dust seems to answer questions like 1. how did all three collapses begin with nearly zero resistance instantaneously and uniformly; 2. and how did all that molten metal collect in pools of the footprints of said buildings.
Real evidence has a tendency to tie up the loose ends quite nicely; doesn’t it?
But if you insist on arguing how Aether was the cause of those collapses, who am I to stop you.
Slarti: It does not address the question of whether or not the chips are fungible.
You’re so full of crap you can’t make up your mind.
Slarti: Up to this point, everything is fine – a little prosaic maybe, but fine
Prosaic; another new shiny word for ya; sing it magpie!
Slarti: What makes this conclusion extraordinary is the conclusion in Bazant that the controlled demolition hypothesis has no scientific merit.
I’m sorry, which way did Bazant say the Aether wind was flowing that day?
Slarti: “I don’t think that the paper made the case for what they claimed. I have explained specifically what they failed to show and discussed why I think it is important.”
Then we are in the presence of true genius. In just a few days you single-handedly figured out something that the peer-review process did not. Since you’re obviously smarter than those who peer-reviewed the paper you should raise your opinion to greater heights and trump the paper with a peer reviewed paper of your own; otherwise, well, what else can we say about your opinion?
I am beginning to see a link between those that think that the Government had no Ideal that the attack was coming and that the Government was conspirator in acquiescence of the aforementioned.
If we lived in a society that allowed access to the classified documents so that we could draw a realistic conclusion then this quest would be satisfied. However, since Carolyn Kennedy has agreed to seal the JFK files for another 25 years….I am not betting on the release in my lifetime of any such documents, so then it is rapidly becoming radially apparent that any such conclusions are in academic gesture…..either for or against a valid conclusion.
Byron,
No. Do you have a link?
Slarti:
Have you read the article by Dr. Richard La Tete on 9/11? He makes a compelling case for thermite which is pretty unusual coming from this guy.