9/11 Poll

[Trippy]

"This is laughable at best.
Your grasp on chemistry barely meets high school standards, why should I believe you're qualified as a scientest?

Still no reference spectrum then?"

The respective spectra are in the report. I'm not going to quote any of Jeffery's work out of context or misrepresent them, unlike you.

No, they Aren't.
Harrit makes no effort to compare his spectra to a refference spectrum for metallic aluminium in any form.

"Strawman argument, appeal to ridicule.
I have stated repeatedly, I do not believe that the aluminium rich platelets present in the sample were metallic aluminium, therefore I can not possibly believe that ordinary paint has ferric oxide (you know that Iron has more than one oxidation state right?) and aluminium platelets in it."

What you "believe" is quite frankly irrelevant. The facts show the presence of aluminium, and not simply alumina (aluminium oxide). The report is clear.

And yet you keep making assumptions about what I believe, and you keep misrepresenting what I believe, only when I point out that what you think I believe is wrong does it become irrelevant.

And you wonder why real scientests have little time for debates like this?

"WTF are you on about?

How many times have I stated that I haven't had the time to examine Harrits 'analysis' of the paints composition? That hasn't changed, and just because you posted a chunk of it in the thread doesn't mean i'm going to take the time to stop and read it."

Oh dear. That doesn't help your "paint" argument does it?

"Besides which, if it's more of the same low quality garbage that his initial analysis was..."

Hmm...you are digging a bigger hole for yourself further with that.

No i'm not, i've already pointed out how Harrits paper fails to meet basic requirements of experimental design, and fails to prove what he claims it does.

Strictly speaking, whether or not the red chips are paint is irrelevant to whether or not they're nano thermite. I don't have to prove that they're paint chips, in order to prove that they're not nanothermite.

"No they haven't.
They've made no effort whatsoever.
No effort to measure the oxidation state directly.
No effort to compare it to a XEDS spectrum of metallic aluminium - speaking of which, you manage to find one that looks like ALumina yet? No?"

Oh dear.

Pages 17-19 of the paper make it clear that one of the intentions of the authors are to test for the presence of elemental aluminium. You need to realise, that even after 900C+ heating, kaolonite is still composed of partially bound alumina (aluminium oxide). X-EDS focussed on a region with high aluminium ratio disproves that this is derived from kaolonite and\or is alumina.

They might have intended to try and prove it, but they failed to do so.
Christopher Columbus intended to sail to India...

I quote AGAIN: -

"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."

Yes, I've read Harrits paper, or did you just ignore the number of times that i've stated it. You're starting to sound like a bible thumper with this whole "Because you disagree with me, you obviously haven't read the paper".

Guess what, i've read through it, several times, and it doesn't say what HArrit thinks it does. If you look at the refference spectrum i've already provided a couple of times now, you'll see that, as I have stated repeatedly, the peak height ratios are identical to the spectrum that Harrit produces.

if you think i'm wrong, show me just one reference spectrum that shows the same features at the same energy.

You won't.
You can't.

Instead you'll sit around pissing in your pants bitching about my being a disinformation agent while playing at being a scientest, and pretending to understand what Harrit (and others) are on about.

So. Your argument that it was primer paint is totally refuted and rejected.

In your dreams. You only wish it was.

Because the amount of Zinc on the samples was very negligible in comparison to the aluminium and silica.

The Zinc oxide which reacts with the oil that formed the paint base, to foram soaps that are soluble in MEK?

That Zinc?

This is in direct contrast with the chemical composition of the primer paint used in the WTC buildings as documented by NIST (and also checked by other external sources). There is also lack of magnesium, which was also present in the WTC primer paint.

Not a point I have looked into.

And finally, primer paint does not have the physical structure observed in the red\gray chips with nano-sized platelets (a curious shape) interspersed and intimately mixed with iron-oxide grains. If you tried to take your arguments to a journal, then it would simply not pass peer-review.

Harrits paper would not pass an honest peer review.
He snuck it into the journal behind the editors back, and has refused to subject his paper to an independent peer review. Some of these points have been raised with him, and he has responded with hand waving and obfuscation.

Now, stop polluting the internet with your deception.

Speaking of polluting the internet, has your mother unplugged the phone cable to the basement yet?

 

[KennyJC]

This is a false argument. It is the rate at which the energy of a substance is transformed which makes it a high explosive....chocolate chip cookies have 8 times the energy of TNT but not one millionth the destructive power because they release their energy very slowly. The same is true of paper relative to high explosives. Nano thermite has twice the energy density of TNT and transforms it's energy at a fairly high rate putting it in the high explosive category.

And what did Jones or Harrit say is the speed of the energy release of the paint... er.. i mean sooper-thermite?

It can also be tailored to minimize noise.

It can be anything you want it to be.

No, it isn't faith at all at this point. There is now proof of it being in the dust from the WTC collapses from several different places in Lower Manhattan.

If Jones or Harrit were so certain it was nanothermite, they'd want to have it inspected by independent experts. They won't though, because they know it will come back with the results of it being paint. They don't want to offer it up to actual experts because they know it would be the nail in the coffin of the truth movement.

Do you deny that there was a weapon designed to deliver a paralyzing dart with an umbrella? How do you know what aiming mechanisms would have been designed into the umbrella weapon? How do you know the umbrella was spinning during the passing of the motorcade?

It's just an immensely stupid idea, and you know it. Show at least some shame.

 

[psikeyhackr]

So then you're comfortable assuming this was the only piece like it they found?

And you have the timerity to make comments about my grasp on reality?

.
So why do we see that same damn picture so much? People admit they only found ONE filing cabinet.

It is like that ONE picture we always see of the ground zero worker standing in front of a column with that slanted cut. Like one column proves something.

Richard Gage doesn't even talk about the distribution of steel. Who's side is he on? Does the distribution of steel have anything to do with reality of skyscrapers? No, it can't possibly be related to the square inches of cross sectional area of the columns on each level.

psik

 

[Trippy]

.
So why do we see that same damn picture so much? People admit they only found ONE filing cabinet.

It is like that ONE picture we always see of the ground zero worker standing in front of a column with that slanted cut. Like one column proves something.

Richard Gage doesn't even talk about the distribution of steel. Who's side is he on? Does the distribution of steel have anything to do with reality of skyscrapers? No, it can't possibly be related to the square inches of cross sectional area of the columns on each level.

psik

Beats me. :shrug:
Maybe because it's the one they decided to keep, I dunno.
I'm just pointing out that the assumption they only found one may not neccessarily be a valid assumption.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It's just an immensely stupid idea, and you know it. Show at least some shame.

You are simply arguing from indredulity here. You have no basis to deny the reality of that umbrella being a weapon other than you can't believe it.

There is proof that there was such a weapon designed, and we have a guy standing with an open umbrella on a sunny day during a murder, with the victim having an entry wound from that direction of the same diameter as that weapon's projectile and smaller than any rifle or pistol rounds.

As far fetched as it may sound initially, it is real. It just wasn't investigated.

 

[leopold]

If the person is sloppy with language, yes, it could mean that it was one or the other. However, if I were to say the above with a clear head, it would mean that I was unable to do all of the above.

you can interpret the video any way you wish. which essentially makes the video worthless. the video also cuts immediately after his statement which implies that he did in fact state later what he did or did not do.

I have certainly seen no evidence that any of the things that he mentioned before his "we were unable to do that" comment were done. Have you discovered any such evidence?

yes. in the nist report on building 7.

We all know that all the WTC 7 steel was destroyed. Why do you think this was done? leopold, I thank you for your asking me to think of the government as my mother, thus apparently implying that this is the way you see the government.

i specifically said "WTC 1 & 2", not the government.

It seems to me that for a while you have wrestled with the possibility that WTC 7 was indeed taken down by controlled demolition and you realize that if that building was taken down by CD, then it weakens the story that the Twin Towers weren't taken down by CD as well. If the picture I'm painting of your state of mind has some bearing to reality, then I would like to say that I sympathize with you.

i'm convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that WTC 1 & 2 was not taken down by explosives.
the only real mystery here is 7.

 

[leopold]

*sigh*

Trippy.....


"I'm taking nothing out of context, and I've been precisely clear on what the reference spectrum is, and where it came from. I've taken nothing out of context, and misrepresented nothing."

Oh really? I and quite a few other scientists think you are wrong.

thinking and knowing are two different things.

i have asked, numerous times, for the evidence that links these chips to WTC 1 & 2. so far this evidence hasn't been forthcoming.

 

[Trippy]

You are simply arguing from indredulity here. You have no basis to deny the reality of that umbrella being a weapon other than you can't believe it.

There is proof that there was such a weapon designed, and we have a guy standing with an open umbrella on a sunny day during a murder, with the victim having an entry wound from that direction of the same diameter as that weapon's projectile and smaller than any rifle or pistol rounds.

As far fetched as it may sound initially, it is real. It just wasn't investigated.

Personally, the only time i've seen an umbrella used as a weapon, it required use at point blank range, and the projectile was hidden in the shaft, not the ribs (and it was used to deliver a lethal dose of Ricin).

 

[Enmos]

2308 posts ? This is absurd..

 

[leopold]

2308 posts ? This is absurd..

of ONE thread out of how many threads?
we might have some kind of record here.

 

[Enmos]

of ONE thread out of how many threads?
we might have some kind of record here.

Nah, I think the Startrek thread has this one beat.

 

[phlogistician]

The term nanometer sized particles does not imply ONE nanometer in diameter. Just like the term micron sized particles does not imply a ONE micron diameter.

No, it implies they are within the region $$ 10^{-9} $$ m

Not $$ 10^{-8} $$ or $$ 10^{-7}$$ m

Particles 200nm across, are not 'nanometre sized particles, they are TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER IN SIZE. You said 'nanometre sized particles, and you are talking out of your butt.

 

[scott3x]

The term nanometer sized particles does not imply ONE nanometer in diameter. Just like the term micron sized particles does not imply a ONE micron diameter.

No, it implies they are within the region $$ 10^{-9} $$ m

Not $$ 10^{-8} $$ or $$ 10^{-7}$$ m

Particles 200nm across, are not 'nanometre sized particles, they are TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER IN SIZE. You said 'nanometre sized particles, and you are talking out of your butt.

phlog, you're right about the first part. A nanometer is indeed $$ 10^{-9} $$. But you failed the test on the second part, thinking that a particle 200 nanometers in size shouldn't be described as a nanometer sized particle.

Why? Because when measuring things that are very small or very big in meters, the measurement types are every 3 powers of magnitude. Thus, meter, and then kilometer $$ 10^{3} $$ m. Millimeter $$ 10^{-3} $$ m, then micron $$ 10^{-6} $$ m, and then nanometer $$ 10^{-9} $$ m. A 200 nanometer object is only .2 microns; it simply can't qualify as a micron sized particle. Hope this helps.

 

[scott3x]

Nah, I think the Startrek thread has this one beat.

I think you mean the Star Wars vs. Star Trek thread, in which case, yes it does, by a large margin. While this is only one of the 9/11 threads, I think that it may well be that even all of the 9/11 threads combined might not beat it. I must admit I laughed at the Star Trek TNG enterprise going against the Death Star ;-).

Actually, I think it's fairly hard to keep threads on 9/11 going at times, because emotions can frequently run high and emotions running high can (and frequently do) equate to people blowing their tops; and that, in turn, can lead to the ruination of a thread. Clearly, it's good if a few cool heads can try to dampen down excessive emotional input, and while I certainly believe there is room for improvement, it seems that we've more or less managed to do this.

 

[leopold]

phlog, you're right about the first part. A nanometer is indeed $$ 10^{-9} $$. But you failed the test on the second part, thinking that a particle 200 nanometers in size shouldn't be described as a nanometer sized particle.

"200 nanometers" is not "a nanometer".
a 200 nanometer particle is not "a nanometer" particle.
in fact it can be described as "a particle 100s of nanometers across".

 

[Hoz_Turner]

No, they Aren't.
Harrit makes no effort to compare his spectra to a refference spectrum for metallic aluminium in any form.

And yet you keep making assumptions about what I believe, and you keep misrepresenting what I believe, only when I point out that what you think I believe is wrong does it become irrelevant.

And you wonder why real scientests have little time for debates like this?

[snip]

Here you go again, avoiding the evidence and the facts.

As for comparing to "reference spectrum", this shows you are confusing the matter, I'm afraid. Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and regarding the beams and regions of focus, the respective spikes for aluminium and oxygen are clear.

The rest of the facts about the lack of zinc oxide and magnesium are clear, and you have avoided them. This completely rules out paint from the WTC.

So, I again ask you to stop spreading disinformation.

 

[scott3x]

phlog, you're right about the first part. A nanometer is indeed $$ 10^{-9} $$. But you failed the test on the second part, thinking that a particle 200 nanometers in size shouldn't be described as a nanometer sized particle.

Why? Because when measuring things that are very small or very big in meters, the measurement types are every 3 powers of magnitude. Thus, meter, and then kilometer $$ 10^{3} $$ m. Millimeter $$ 10^{-3} $$ m, then micron $$ 10^{-6} $$ m, and then nanometer $$ 10^{-9} $$ m. A 200 nanometer object is only .2 microns; it simply can't qualify as a micron sized particle. Hope this helps.

"200 nanometers" is not "a nanometer".

Correct.

a 200 nanometer particle is not "a nanometer" particle.

Again, correct. It is a nanometer -sized- particle. That is, it is within the nanometer range- equal to or larger than a nanometer and smaller than a micron.

in fact it can be described as "a particle 100s of nanometers across".

Sure. It can't, however, be described as a micron sized particle. What measurement type would you use to describe it?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Beats me. :shrug:
Maybe because it's the one they decided to keep, I dunno.
I'm just pointing out that the assumption they only found one may not neccessarily be a valid assumption.

.
Isn't ASSUMING ANYTHING outside the laws of physics invalid?

You are just muddying the waters without contributing anything.

Doesn't every skyscraper have to hold up its own weight? Didn't that problem have to be solved in the Empire State building? So why shouldn't we be told the distribution of steel and concrete and not have to ASSUME ANYTHING?

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/worl...ate-towers-should-have-remained-standing-9-11

psik

 

[scott3x]

No, they Aren't.
Harrit makes no effort to compare his spectra to a refference spectrum for metallic aluminium in any form.

And yet you keep making assumptions about what I believe, and you keep misrepresenting what I believe, only when I point out that what you think I believe is wrong does it become irrelevant.

And you wonder why real scientests have little time for debates like this?

[snip]

Here you go again, avoiding the evidence and the facts.

As for comparing to "reference spectrum", this shows you are confusing the matter, I'm afraid. Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and regarding the beams and regions of focus, the respective spikes for aluminium and oxygen are clear.

The rest of the facts about the lack of zinc oxide and magnesium are clear, and you have avoided them. This completely rules out paint from the WTC.

So, I again ask you to stop spreading disinformation.

Trippy, I took a look at the data Hoz presented, and what he's saying makes sense to me.

 

[scott3x]

Beats me. :shrug:
Maybe because it's the one they decided to keep, I dunno.
I'm just pointing out that the assumption they only found one may not neccessarily be a valid assumption.

Isn't ASSUMING ANYTHING outside the laws of physics invalid?

You are just muddying the waters without contributing anything.

Doesn't every skyscraper have to hold up its own weight? Didn't that problem have to be solved in the Empire State building? So why shouldn't we be told the distribution of steel and concrete and not have to ASSUME ANYTHING?

psik

I don't think that knowing the destribution of steel and concrete would mean that we would the know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth concerning 9/11

However, it would be nice. It would also be nice to know conclusively if there was anything other than anything of the floors survived other than this meteorite like piece. Your mentioning that there was only one filing cabinet found is strongly suggestive that little if any more of it survived. This all goes back to the issue of how much energy would have been required to create the type of collapse debris that was found at ground zero. I used to think that the quantity of dust in the following link may be off, but now I'm not sure; Tony told me something that led me to believe this, but I'm now wondering if the number I was thinking of, which had been supplied by an official story supporter, was in fact a misinterpretation of something that was said in it. I definitely think that some useful things can probably be ferretted out of the following article from 9/11 Research concerning the North Tower's dust cloud:
The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center