9/11 Poll

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No other information other than what I stated has been released or is available by extracting it from models.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sub micron would be synonymous. Either term works.

 

There have been times where I couldn't make heads or tails of the data, but this isn't one of those cases. This is the point he makes that persuades me:

Here's an excerpt that Hoz mentioned from Neils Harrit's article:

COMPARISON WITH THE COMPOSITION OF THE RED/GRAY CHIPS

The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode1. Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.​

 

phlog's case was that 200 nanometers was too big for a nanometer sized particle. With one exception that I saw, most of the particles mentioned in the articles you mention don't mention anything above the double digit nanometer range. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out elsewhere, while the UK, atleast, seems to have defined nanoparticles as 100 nanometers or below, this is not an international standard. Most importantly, what we want to know is if the nano material can demolish the WTC buildings; and here, I believe, we have strong evidence showing that it could indeed do so.

 

No, Phlog originally wanted to say I was wrong because the term nanometer sized particle implied single digit size only.

He later went on to use 200 nanometers in an argument.

Does the Harrit paper talk about iron oxide or aluminum particles of 200 nanometers in size?

 

Only a fool could believe that a guy with an umbrella equates to a guy with an umbrella with poison darts inside it for some unfathomable reason trying to hit the president with it.

Entry wound? lol

The entry wound was on his back and the exact path the bullet takes can be traced from JFK's back to the governor that was sitting in front of him. There's nothing controversial about this since the bullet path vindicates a single bullet and both men react at exactly the same moment.

I don't get why you try to make an already implausible conspiracy theory to just flat-out coo coo land.

 

Ah ok.

I only found 7 mentions of aluminates or aluminum in the paper (I did a search). In none of those mentions is the size of the material mentioned.

 

I didn't remember it mentioning anything on the order of 200 nanometers for aluminum and iron oxide particles.

 

I suggest you read my post on this subject, which can be found in the JFK and 9/11 thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2300639&postcount=44

In fairness, however, Jim Marrs, who has written a book on the JFK assassination has determined that most researchers believe that the umbrella man's purpose was somewhat different. I have elaborated on this theory as well as the contradictions of the official umbrella man story as well as the almost complete silence over his dark complected companion here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2297025&postcount=33

 

Oh wait; phlog said it did? I thought you meant that it had mentioned double digit nanometer sizes ;-).

 

I don't think I said anything about 200 nanometer particles being mentioned in the Harrit et al paper.

 

Here are some short links on the umbrella man and the umbrella, including the transcript from the Church committee hearings about the dart launchers and darts.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/articles/umbrella.php

 

.
Gregory Urich already did that. The information is in computer readable for for the SAP2000 program. But he had to do an interpolation for the perimeter wall panels. He has produced a spreadsheet of the data. Frank Greening has acknowledged that his info is the best available.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf

But there is still the problem of all these sources that claim the towers had 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So the accurate of the data is still open to question. So I certainly find it curious how Richard Gage can talk all this crap about taking and architect or engineer to lunch but they aren't all over the business of getting this data straight like white on rice. It's more like hit an architect or engineer up side the head with a baseball bat.

JEEZ

BELIEVERS just don't want FACTS!

psik

 

Oh, no, I don't think you did either. I know that phlog mentioned a 200 nanometer particle, but I didn't know he was referring to Harrit's article; if so, I'd be very interested in seeing where he got it from, because I just searched for 200 and two and hundred and found exactly 0 entries for all of them. I had thought that you were implying that Harrit's paper was mentioning below 200 nanometer particles

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Scott, I searched the paper and found this on page 25

The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in
that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components
which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100
nanometers (nm) or less.

So the paper makes no mention of any of the red/gray chip active particles being anywhere above 100 nm in size.

and finally there is another quote from a paper by Gash etal dated April 2000 that states

“Nanostructured composites are multicomponent
materials in which at least one of the component
phases has one or more dimensions
(length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer
size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm.

So this should put any conjecture about what is meant by nanometer size particles to bed.