Additonal Experiments with Nano Therm. vs. WTC Dust

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

I did not say that if the paper had been published in a forensics journal I would have no objections to it.

That's exactly my point Pteredine.

Your argument against the article on the basis of where it was published is nothing but a smear tactic, because no matter where it was published a different variation of the same objection could be applied.

Not at all true. I used this to question the common mantra about a "peer reviewed paper" as though this completely biased work was reviewed by scientific peers. Apparently, some shady dealings occurred and the paper was published where it didn't belong.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
I will grant you there is some validity to your argument.

But only if you are a belligerent reader. Strictly this paper should not have been published in a journal to begin with, 100% true.

There is no journal where this meets the standard criteria for research, 100% true.

But what is ALSO highly irregular is that there was no proper investigation done on the WTC dust in the first place. The proper place to publish this would be in the court records.

What is irregular is that you INSIST on peer reviewed publication, but then invent a series of backpedaling prevarications when it is.

You are making things up, I nowhere insist on peer reviewed publication.

The fact that something is published in one of the top 10 journals and reviewed by the leading scholars in any particular field is NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER that the information found therein is true. The fact that it published in a backwater journal no-one has heard about reviewed by the head writer's spouse IN NO WAY suggests that it is false.

If you want guarantees you have to go to an insurance company. The main difference is of course not the guarantee, it is the credibility. Currently Jones paper doesn't have any, outside the truth movement.

Peer review and place of publication are administrative and academic shortcuts, at best. At worst they are misleading entrenchments of sometimes catastrophically misguided ideas.

Saying that something is true or false because of where it is published or who reviewed it is intrinsically a logical fallacy because it is not a substantive. It does not address THE ACTUAL FACTS.

It doesn't matter if it is the dean of Harvard who endorses these practices (although I would be shocked and chagrined if any academic actually argued that these measures are measures of veracity), they are logical fallacies.

I am glad you say this. It is an often heard argument from truthers that Jones paper contains valid conclusions (or something along those lines) because it was, as they claim, peer reviewed. And consequently, these truthers only accept a rebuttal if it is also peer reviewed, not understanding that the label "peer reviewed" does not determine whether something is true or false.

Address the substance.

But I forget, you HAVE addressed the substance, but all your arguments have been found to be either wholly baseless, unfalsifiable or wholly in error. That and ONLY THAT, is the reason we are even talking about where it was published right now.

You know it, I know it. The only one you fool is yourself.

They are only wholly baseless, unfalsifiable or wholly in error in the world of truthers. In the real world the arguments are rock solid, being the reason Jones paper is not taken seriously. Besides, you are in no way qualified to come to this conclusion. It is nothing more than your bias.

Fact is, Jones did not prove thermite. Henry concluded the chips he tested were not thermite. Mark Basile proved that at least one of the chips he tested was not thermite. 70% Carbon, 20% oxygen, ~2% iron and ~2% aluminum is not thermite. There is no experiment that conclusively shows thermite. Unless you change the meaning of the term thermite, there is no proof of it. Since Jones is not showing any ambition to do further testing, the rational conclusion is that it was not thermite, and Jones knows it. He knows that any independent test would prove its paint, else he would have done so years ago. Well, that is the conclusion when you use logic and rational thinking.

(ps, if you think the text is too long and with too little spaces in between, I am sorry)

reply to post by pteridine

Apparently, some shady dealings occurred and the paper was published where it didn't belong.

I'd love to live in your Aristotilean fantasy-world where everything fits into a neat little box like that, unfortunately I find myself stuck in reality where it kinda doesn't work that way.

There are only three reasons why the paper could be published against the wishes and knowledge of editor-in-chief 1) She was grossly incompetent; or B) She is lying through here teeth; or C) Some combination of the above.

Originally posted by Darkwing01
reply to post by pteridine

 

Apparently, some shady dealings occurred and the paper was published where it didn't belong.

I'd love to live in your Aristotilean fantasy-world where everything fits into a neat little box like that, unfortunately I find myself stuck in reality where it kinda doesn't work that way.

There are only three reasons why the paper could be published against the wishes and knowledge of editor-in-chief 1) She was grossly incompetent; or B) She is lying through here teeth; or C) Some combination of the above.

You have shown that you kinda live entirely in a reality of your own making, a kinda place where contrived conspiracies rule and the only evidence collected is to support your fervent beliefs. Even though you are convinced of your thoroughness, your two reasons are severely limited. Perhaps your lack of imagination has something to do with that. Among the many possible reasons you neglected to include are collusion by an associate editor or Bentham functionary that bypassed the editor and never sent the paper to her desk for review or approval. As a hard core conspiracist, you should have had this one listed first.

reply to post by pteridine

Even though you are convinced of your thoroughness, your two reasons are severely limited.

If you work in a shoe factory and your your job is to make sure that all the shoes have laces before and after they are boxed and after your day's work it is found that 1/6th of the shoes have been boxed without laces and shipped, then blame the machinist and resign.

If you are a pilot and forget to check that your landing gear is down before landing, do you blame the air-hostesses for not reminding to do it?

Perhaps your lack of imagination has something to do with that.

I can think of a million more examples of people who fail to do something which is not only in their job description but IS their job description, my only limitation is time. But you are right, I don't have enough imagination to believe that someone who fails to do their job in this manner is incompetent or lying after the fact. I also don't have enough imagination to believe the OS. I believe the moon is made out of fine ripe brie and Harry Potter is non-fiction, but the OS is one step too far from reality for me.

It is an editor's job to vet and check articles before publication and ensure that the publication itself meets the required standards. If the article was inserted on the sly the correct course of action would be to fire the employee who inserted it and withdraw the paper BEFORE resigning.

www.buzzle.com...

- Cross checking the facts, spellings, grammar, writing style, design pages, photos etc. is the final responsibility of an editor in chief. The article that comes to him for approval is generally one that has already gone through initial editing processes, but still, should something be wrong with it, the final accountability being that of an editor in chief, he is also required to go through it again.

-It is the responsibility of the editor in chief to reject a piece of writing that appears to be plagiarized or ghost written by another sub-editor. It is an editor in chief responsibility to check that a particular piece is neither self-plagiarized, nor has been published before elsewhere.

-An editor in chief is required to make light as well as heavy edits to the content in question. Light edits involve light editing work, i.e., work that does not require making substantial theme changes, structure changes and writing style changes. When all of these require some heavy attention, the editing is called heavy editing.

-An editor in chief may be required to contribute editorial pieces in the publication industry. He is also responsible for all the content that is approved for publishing and is often accountable for it, if he is working for any of the types of print media. The publication's standards of performance depends heavily on its editor in chief.

-An editor in chief is required to motivate and develop the staff under him on an occasional basis. Often, editor in chief responsibilities are seen to expend to the operational and strategic planning of the organization as well.

-If it is a magazine we are looking at, it is the editor in chief's responsibility to see that the issue is completely full of content and no area is left empty. They are also required to handle reader's complaints and explain and account for them.

-A book or journal editor in chief oversees all the stages of the book, from the manuscript form, all to the published book stage. He performs all the aforementioned editing tasks on the entire book.

-It is the editor in chief's responsibility to cross check all citations and examine all the references provided in the content.

-A technical editor in chief has the added responsibility to check the technical soundness and technical quality of the content. For this, he is required to have the technical skills in the related field or product. For technical editing, he should know how to use tools such as Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) and DocBooks.

Editor in chief responsibilities for business editing require skills of proofreading, copy editing, developmental editing, line editing and editing for search engine optimization.

www.newuniversity.org...

1. Edits all editorial copy after the associate, section editor and copy editor
2. Reads all copy for libel before 9:00 am on Sundays
3. Proofreads PDFs before they are uploaded to Freedom Press in Anaheim, and
stays until the paper is uploaded to Freedom Press
4. Oversees content and coverage of all sections
5. Prepares agenda for staff meetings
6. Signs official documents
7. Has final approval on all hirings and firings
8. Represents the paper at official functions
9. Approves all correction notices that run in the paper
10. Revises and updates job descriptions and New U Guidelines when necessary
11. Contributes constructive and helpful criticism to tear-up each week
12. Oversees expenditure of operations and obtains approval with administrative
personnel on budget before any purchases are made

...because using google to read the job description of an editor is hard...

reply to post by Darkwing01


I note that you did not expand your options to include collusion by an associate editor or Bentham functionary that bypassed the editor. That is what seems to be what happened and it also casts doubt on the idea of a "peer review" for this paper. Your google search seemed to be for editors that are paid and can fire people and doesn't seem to apply to editors of scientific journals.

Pileni wisely decided to resign which was probably the only thing she could do in protest.

Hi,

I am a person who luckily disclosed in JREF "paint thread" forums.randi.org... that chips (a) to (d) studied in Bentham paper were all very, very probably chips of Laclede primer paint used for corrosion protection of WTC1 and WTC2 floor trusses. As a Czech polymer chemist with a 25 years of experience, I would like to summarize here shortly our points for Laclede paint, contrary to points for some sort of thermite. If you like to have some specific relevant links here, just let me know. (And sorry for my Czech English

Points for Laclede paint:
1) According to specification (NCSTAR 16-B, Appendix B, p. 155), Laclede primer paint had the composition which corresponds very well to the composition of chips (a) to (d), as found by XEDS probe in Bentham paper (C, Fe, Al, Si, O and minute amounts of Sr and Cr on the level of noise).
2) Almond in JERF presented simulated (calculated) XEDS spectra, using percentage of elements present in Laclede paint according to spec. Simulated spectra of paint are in very good agreement with the XEDS spectra of chips.
3) According to NIST reports, almost no paint remained on the floor trusses steel after collapses. Therefore, it must be abundant in the dust after the catastrophe. Oystein in JREF calculated the total area of floor trusses and (using declared thickness of paint layer 25 microns), estimated the amount of Laclede paint chips in the dust to be 20-30 tons. This is in a reasonable agreement with the concentration of red chips (0.1 %,) in the dust (Harrit et al estimated the total amount of red chips as 10 tons).
4) Chips contained mostly compounds and elements typical for anti-corrosion steel primer paints: iron (as oxide), Al, Si (probably as some aluminosilicate or mixture of silicates and aluminum compounds), oxygen, (little of strontium and chromate) and a lot (about 70 %) of carbon (polymer) binder.
5) Several old patents describe manufacture of iron oxide nanoparticles. One is from the year 1947 (American Cyanamide) and describes a manufacture of crystalline nanoparticles of uniform size ca 100 nm (as were found in the red chips). Concerning aluminosilicates, their nanoforms are abundant even in the nature. Therefore, manufacture of primer paints containing these pigment nanoparticles was possible and probably quite usual in Golden sixties.
6) Red layers in the chips were mostly attached to gray layers (rusted steel). Typical for steel primer paints (and nonsensical for thermites, since 20 micron thick layer of thermite can not destroy anything).
7) Laclede paint contained (according to spec.) cured epoxy resin (cca 79 %) as a binder. This corresponds quite well to the carbon content in the red chips. (Such amount of binder is typical for paints, contrary, amount of binder in real thermites must be as low as possible, usually well below 10 %).
8) Like the most of organic polymers, such epoxy resin rapidly degrades at temperatures ca 380 – 430 degress of C both under air and under inert atmosphere (!) This degradation is always exothermic (it is more exothermic under air) and it would be accompanied by quite sharp exothermic peaks in DSC in this region. This is in full accordance with the exotherms observed in Bentham paper. Simply: “Bentham team” observed a burning of epoxy binder. I proved even experimentally for prepared Laclede paint imitation that it vividly burns when ignited and is rapidly degraded both under air and nitrogen at about 380 – 400 degrees C (followed by thermogravimetric analysis, TGA). The remaining discrepancy (red chip in Bentham paper burned at slightly higher temperatures around 430 degrees C), can be attributed to the fact that chips were almost 40 years old and thus inevitably oxidized.
9) It does not matter if anticorrosive primer is flammable in the case of fire (when applied in thickness typical for paints). It is not intended as fireproofing and its burning cannot damage anything.

Points for thermites:
1) An alleged formation of iron-richer shiny round objects (microspheres) during burning of chips. According to the truthers, such microspheres cannot be formed at temperatures lower than 700 degrees C (end temperature of DSC measurements). According to us, such microspheres (not really made of iron, but simply iron-rich, as shown in Bentham paper) can be formed when iron oxide nanoparticles are in contact in graphitized polymer which can reduce some oxide. E.g., I have just found this paper www.jstage.jst.go.jp... which describes a partial reduction of iron oxide when heated together with polyethylene at temperatures well below 600 degrees C (873 K). Notably (as Pteridine remarked), Henryco did not found any microspheres formed during heating of his chips.

In conclusion:
Almost nothing is in favor of thermites. And almost everything is in favor of Laclede paint (and it has been clear from the very beginning that “primer paint hypothesis” is much more plausible, as for red chips found in the dust).
Regards, Ivan

I have posted this "introduction to Laclede paint hypothesis" with intention to immediately add some details.

Probably the most crucial is this one: DSC measurements of degradation of epoxy binder in Laclede paint would give exotherms at ca 370 - 430 degrees C even under inert atmosphere (!)

Some explanation:
1) Polymer degradation is seldom investigated by DSC, since this method is not suitable for the measurements where the great loss of material is observed (like in both purely thermal and thermal-oxidative degradation of polymers).

2) Polymer degradation is usually investigated by means of thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), where this loss of material is measured.

3) There are dozens papers available about thermal and thermal-oxidative degradation of epoxides or epoxide composites investigated by TGA. Invariably, epoxides suffer rapid degradation in the region cca 380-420 degrees C both under air and under inert atmosphere (! - it was a surprise for me). You can find one excellent paper on this matter here: books.google.cz... TfA&hl=cs&ei=bVlvTv7pHZDbsgbW9a2jBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=degradation%20epoxy%20second%20step&f=false (p. 211 to 231). It is written here (p. 219, Figs 7 and 8), that degradation of epoxides is exothermic even under inert atmosphere). Of course, it will be even more exothermic under air.

4) In Fig. 8. you can see one of the few available correlations between TGA and DSC curves during heating of epoxides. As expected, when the rapid loss of mass is observed in TGA, the distinct and sharp exotherms is recorded in DSC. Therefore, we can for sure correlate any found TGA with DSC (although DSC was not actually measured because of mentioned methodological problems.)

In summary: it seems that it would not be so easy/straightforward, using DSC, to distinguish alleged thermitic reaction from degradation of epoxy binder even under inert atmosphere. On the other hand: let say we can measure samples of authentic Laclede paint found on floor trusses. If DSC shows for these samples the similar exotherms as observed in Bentham for chips (a) to (d) under air, this would be a very good proof that we are dealing with this particular paint (and not with thermite...)

I find this all very interesting that the debunkers” opinions” it was the red paint. This has been argued to death, Jones proved it was not the paint as he demonstrated it in his peer reviewed journal. Jones was able to show his different flash burn tests on the different particles he discover, Jones did say he thought the Nano-thermite could have been mix with the red paint as an application to apply this deadly explosive material in the WTC.

The reason I stand by his work is because it has been accepted by the scientific community and supports the credible eyewitness account that was documented and buried by the FBI because their statements did not support the government’s fairytales. As Jones said, we are now talking Military science.

reply to post by IvanKminek


Thank you, Ivan, for your considerable efforts, and substantive contribution. This analysis needs to be substantively rebutted, and not dismissed out of hand.

reply to post by IvanKminek


Ivan this needs to have it's own thread so it doesn't get lost in the back of this one. You only have two post and can't start a thread. Would you like me to start one for you ? What thread title would you like ?

Originally posted by impressme

As Jones said, we are now talking Military science.

He also has stated publicly that his "find" could NOT have heated the steel.

His claim NOW is that it was a fuse for conventional explosives........

Pretty far fetched, huh?

reply to post by Joey Canoli

He also has stated publicly that his "find" could NOT have heated the steel.

His claim NOW is that it was a fuse for conventional explosives........

Pretty far fetched, huh?

Jones also said he discovered a supper Nano thermite. Jones said the heat from the flash test burned hotter than normal thermite. Jones said the thermite he discovered could have easily weakened the steel.

Originally posted by impressme

Jones also said he discovered a supper Nano thermite.

What about breakfast and lunch?

Originally posted by waypastvne
reply to post by IvanKminek

 

Ivan this needs to have it's own thread so it doesn't get lost in the back of this one. You only have two post and can't start a thread. Would you like me to start one for you ? What thread title would you like ?

Hi, waypastvne, thanks for the offer to start a new thread. It could have a title like "Were so called nanothermite chips found in WTC dust particles of steel primer paints?" Just now, I am not sure that I would be able to contribute into such a thread so extensively as in the relevant JREF forum. It is quite time consuming, you know...

In fact, I put this my post here (and similar one on Democratic Underground web) with the hope that some people outside of JREF could offer some real help with collecting of samples necessary for direct experimental falsification of "Bentham paper". Such samples could be: 1) Some red-gray (or red) chips from the WTC dust; 2) Chips of primer paint stripped from the WTC floor trusses. The second alternative is better for such a research, but it seems that almost no paint remained on the trusses...

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Joey Canoli
Jones also said he discovered a supper Nano thermite. Jones said the heat from the flash test burned hotter than normal thermite. Jones said the thermite he discovered could have easily weakened the steel.

I suppose that you are just joking and trolling