Seriously: someone explain to me why the rest of the scientific community refuses to support the thermite claim except the so-called "truthers"
I'd really like to know.
Posted Nov 11, 2013, 10:02 PM UTC
can someone summarize all of these arguments? I tried to sift through the debris but im finding it hard. Was nano thermite used or was it not? is the evidence for the thermite real or fake?
Here's the best summary. OP has already made his mind up 100% on the matter. He comes here, not to have a discussion in order to reach the truth. But to argue with "conspiracy theorists" as to why they are wrong and he is right.
"Why do I spend my day researching all the silly claims made by these "truthers" and argue point for point with them, when all they do is ignore the evidence and continue to believe their little fairy tale?
Why do I bother to present factual information when you have scientists publishing "peer reviewed" papers that say they found magic skyscraper destroying powder in the dust?
Why do I continue to bash my head into the wall when you have people saying that giant death rays "dustified" the buildings from outer space?
Why do I feel like I'm the only person arguing for sanity in a Colosseum full of lunatics?
I've spent the past week arguing semantics with some jackass that refuses to understand what the word "refute" means.
And when I ask for someone to give me the name of one scientist other than the original authors of the bullshit document that believes all this bullshit, they cite me the original authors and the document.
FUCK! I've had it with these fucking people!"
But then again, anyone who posts to a subreddit with the word "tard" in it, isn't exactly looking for a civil discussion.
In a nutshell, there's been exactly one paper submitted, (the Jones/ Harrit paper) that said that when they tested the dust samples, they found what they thought was unreactive aluminized carbon nanothermite. This is what "truthers" use as their foundation for the controlled demolition argument. No other scientists agree with this. The lead scientist lost his job because of it, the editor of the scientific journal that published the paper resigned over it and the paper itself has been debunked and discredited by pretty much EVERYONE as being politically motivated.
unreactive aluminized carbon nanothermite.
Harrit/Jones claim to have found unreact-ED nanothermite. Huge difference between "unreactive" and "unreacted," as I am sure you are aware.
Many (whom apparently you are not counting among "EVERYONE") believe that Jones' dismissal from BYU was politically motivated, and that Pileni's resignation was also politcally motivated.
Niels Harrit: Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal
Hypothesis: A movie about Steven Jones
You devote so much energy to attacking the Jones/Harrit paper, but you never venture to give your [undoubtedly] superior theories on the mysterious collapse of the three towers.
To witness some truly "politically motivated" behavior, see this interview with Niels Harrit by a hostile BBC reporter.
Harrit/Jones claim to have found unreact-ED nanothermite. Huge difference between "unreactive" and "unreacted," as I am sure you are aware.
Im not aware. Explain it to me.
"They have printed the article without my permission... I cannot accept this, and therefore I have written to Bentham that I resign from all activities with them. I cannot accept that this topic is published in my journal. The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics, and I could well believe that there is a political viewpoint behind its publication. If anyone had asked me, I would say that the article should never have been published in this journal. Period.”
-Marie Paule Pileni
You devote so much energy to attacking the Jones/Harrit paper, but you never venture to give your [undoubtedly] superior theories on the mysterious collapse of the three towers.
I devote energy to highlighting that the paper that has become the foundation for the thermite theory - the paper every conspiracy theorist holds as gospel - is devoid of scientific fact and has been rebuked by the scientific community.
12 years later and I still have yet to see one scientist support the paper.
The article has nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics [???]
Niels Harrit, commenting on Pileni's resignation:
"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."
P.S. You still haven't answered my question. WHAT HAPPENED TO BUILDING 7, TROLL?
is the evidence for the thermite real or fake?
The evidence is real.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (PDF)
9/11 nanothermite: Elemental aluminium in WTC-chips & video of ignition: Dr. James Millette is wrong - The included video clip showing a thermitic reaction of a chip sample is pretty damning all by itself.
Niels Harrit: Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal
In spite of SutekhRising's implication that the paper only had two authors, there were actually nine scientists that authored the paper with Niels Harrit being the lead scientist and he did not lose his job. The nine are:
Niels Holger Harrit, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, Copenhagen University
Steven E. Jones, PhD, (now former) Professor Emeritus of Physics with Brigham Young University, B.S. in Physics, Mathematics minor, magna cum laude with honors, from Brigham Young University in 1973, Ph.D. in Physics, Mathematics/Electronics minors from Vanderbilt University in 1978, Ph.D. research conducted at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (1974-1977); course work completed at Stanford University, Post-doctoral research conducted at Cornell University (CESR) and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.
Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota. Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU
Kevin R. Ryan, Chemist, former Underwriters Laboratories manager
Frank M. Legge, PhD Chemistry, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia.
Daniel Farnsworth, PhD candidate, Physics, Brigham Young University
Gregg Roberts, BA Psychology, UT Austin, 1990
James R. Gourley, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma, graduated with Special Distinction
Bradley R. Larsen, MS Geology
Dr. Steven Jones did lose his job at BYU but that was due to in-house politics.
Also note that, as with SutekhRising's comment, it's always ad hominem attacks against the man and/or the journal that are used against the published paper rather than any reasonable discussion of the facts. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the issue.
A guy with a BA in psych? Really?
It's not unreasonable to include a psychologist in an effort to keep cognitive biases out of the research.
Unreasonable? No. Suspicious? Hell yes!
Dr. Steven Jones did lose his job at BYU but that was due to in-house politics.
Yeah, the in-house politics of the less than ethical way this paper was "peer reviewed" and submitted to a scientific journal.
Jones peers felt he wasnt being honest with the iformation and complained to BYU. BYU then allowed Jones to resign.
ad hominem attacks
Genetic Fallacy
Actually. they're pretty much the same. Nevermind... Carry on.
Thanks for asking for facts and not just accepting what some YouTube video says.
Seriously: someone explain to me why the rest of the scientific community refuses to support the thermite claim except the so-called "truthers"
Gotta love the logic here.
[deleted]
Gotta love the logic here.
Good catch.
Explain yourself.
Any scientist/expert who supports the claim is labeled a "truther" by people such as yourself. Therefore, there can literally be ::no one:: other than "truthers" who support the thermite claim. This logic is flawed.
No, Im not talking about the truthers. Im talking about the people that use logic and reason and evidence to come up with a definitive answer to explain the event.
Not someone that looks at the towers and screams "false flag!" and then proceeds to find any scrap of information that supports that idea.
This is 0 to do with what I just said.
My statement still stands.
The logic is flawed. He pointed it out. I explained it to you.
[deleted]
The guy who uses Rancourt's blog as a peer reviewed rebuttal to the actual peer reviewed Jones/Harrit paper is in no position to comment on the peer review of said paper. You clearly have no idea what a peer reviewed paper is.
Do you understand how the peer review process works?
I do. You have not refuted my comment with your "reply." Let me know when you are ready.
[deleted]
That's what I thought. You're right though. You are "done."
Oh for the love of god.
Here we go with the whole "refute" argument again.
I'm sorry that you are unable to do so. However, that is not my problem.
I have no idea.
This blog asks some questions: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/05/has-nanothermite-been-oversold-to-911.html
Edit: While I am convinced that some kind of reactive substance was used to help bring the towers down, the reason I included it was because I think that there was more than thermite used on the towers. I think some places were exploded. This is my opinion.
Yeah, I know that post quite well. I have it bookmarked to prove my point. Usually the response I get is that Im just a shill.
I have yet to find one person that can successfully argue in favor of Thermite.
Well, I know that something happened to those towers to make them fall down. But I would like more than two sources for me to feel comfortable with the Thermite. On the other hand, there is not much to disprove a thermite like substance either. Do you have a list of any sources that can prove thermite was not used? in a way that someone else can reproduce with analysis and experiment ? I have yet to see something that can stand up to scrutiny that conclusively rules out thermite.
I am pretty sure that if people were interested enough, they could find some layers of dirt in New York that have not been disturbed that still has a layer of the dust in it. Find the layers, prove you have the right stuff and do reproducible tests on them that others can verify. If more people did that then that would be good.
There was someone in this forum a while back that said he had samples and did not believe in the thermite, but offered no convincing proof.
I do believe that something heated up the metal. I would like to know what.
Edit:
tl;dr I personally think a thermite like substance was used with other things, and not by itself.
On the other hand, there is not much to disprove a thermite like substance either. Do you have a list of any sources that can prove thermite was not used?
Do you have any sources that can prove the towers didnt fall from death rays beamed at them from space by cloaked alien spaceships?
This fallacy is called an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
The most conclusive test done on the dust samples was done by James Millette who found that the mysterious microscopic red/grey chips found in the dust samples collected after 9/11 were in fact, epoxy resin and not, unreactive aluminized nanothermite.
http://www.takeourworldback.com/millettepaintchips.htm
The best explanation for Millette's conflicting results of no elemental aluminum or thermitic reactions is the fact that Millette washed his chips.
Wat' ya think ? And please leave references about aliens out of this... I am sensitive about my heritage.
Also, my asking your for sources to support the oposite viewpoint is not "appeal to ignorance fallacy", it was a question.
Negative results occur in medical testing all the time. Tests show absence.
Everyone in here has done that already. Just because you keep recycling your already disproven "debunker" lines, doesn't mean it isn't so.
You come back after 12 days and decide to keep going with this argument. This is quite amusing. You have yet to answer my original request.
No, I'll continue to watch you squirm to avoid literally everyone's rebuttals right now.
Jeffrey Farrer, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen.
These are all the people from the original thermite paper that Jones and Harrit had published.
This paper has been completely discredited. The editor in chief of the journal that published this paper - who is a professor with a specialty in nanomaterials at the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in France resigned in disgust over the issue and stated that she never reviewed the paper before it was published:
This is the same journal that famously published a computer generated paper of total gibberish and claimed it was peer-reviewed. Another editor resigned after that little faux pas was uncovered.
In a review of the journal, journalist Jeffrey Beall noted that "in many cases, Bentham Open journals publish articles that no legitimate peer-review journal would accept, and unconventional and nonconformist ideas are being presented in some of them as legitimate science."
He concluded by stating that "the site has exploited the Open Access model for its own financial motives and flooded scholarly communication with a flurry of low quality and questionable research."
The publishing company that owned the journal dropped them from their list after all this controversy was uncovered.
In short, the paper Jones/ Harrit et all presented was never peer reviewed, should have never been published and is not supported by the scientific community.
That list of people wrote other things too. You talk about peer reviewed papers, but you are not bringing any peer reviewed papers to the table either. What solid proof do YOU have for your version of events ?
Well, there's this peer-reviewed paper by Denis Rancourt who is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.
There's also This peer-reviewed paper by Jérôme Quirant a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Montpellier. (I apologize that its in French. If anyone knows of a good translation, I'd be appreciative.)
Then there's Dr. Dave Rogers comments on the peer-review process and dubious nature of Jones' paper. While not officially "peer reviewed" itself I thiink it helps bring some validity to the other claims.
Then there's the fact that Brigham Young University "retired" Steven Jones over this paper and the embarrassment he brought to BYU:
Is this enough, or would you like more information to support my position?
12 years later and I have yet to see one piece of evidence that supports the thermite theory.
I replied to the links and quotes elsewhere to the thread. Do you have your own theory of what happened ?
This "peer-review" paper of Denis Rancourt is not peer-reviewed. It is merely his own laughable attempt at a "peer-review" of the Harrit/Jones paper. For Rancourt (former physics professor, U. of Ottowa) to imply that he is a peer of Niels Harrit is a blasphemous slur against the credentials of Niels Harrit (Associate Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.)
And please listen to Harrit demolish every one of Rancourt's lame criticisms in their classic debate.
I'd like to add here that the resignation of Professor Marie-Paule Pileni as editor of the Open Chemical Physics journal did not occur as explained by SutekhRising. See Niels Harrit's explanation here.
As for the "gibberish" paper that SutekhRising claimed was published, it in fact did not get published. It was submitted and, being recognized as a hoax, the editors responded to the alleged author that it had been approved as a means to find out just who was attempting to perpetrate the hoax. This has all been explained many, many times here at r/911Truth and at r/conspiracy but the usual suspects keep coming back with the same disinfo over and over again completely ignoring the facts of the situation as it happened.
Well there's this by Denis Rancourt who was a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa.
There's also this peer-reviewed paper from professor Jérôme Quirant, but its entirely in French. If you know of a good translation somewhere I wold be appreciative.
And there's this paper that does a pretty good job of discrediting Steven Jones and the truther movement.
And as for Jones himself, he was relieved of his position with BYU:
Again, it is completely disingenuous for you to call Rancourt's paper "peer-reviewed." It simply is not.
An article in french ? I ran it through translation, and it does not add anything new to the debate.
Jones was fired for political reasons.
What do you think happened on 9-11?
Edit: and that other article does a good job of attacking one person, but does not address any of the reasons that so many people find the government's story unbelievable?
I looked at the first link: Firstly, it has already been established that the chips are paint chips, but that does not detract from the other findings. There was a debate between the two http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/11/harrit-rancourt-debate-my-take-then.html
Edit: just because the chips are paint chips does not take away importance from Harrit's paper, both men did find physical evidence of accelerants.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/653-debunking-the-real-911-myths-why-popular-mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-5-nanothermite-in-the-towers.html
further on down it talks about that quote. It seems a politically connected professor distanced herself from the article without actually talking about it in a scientific way although she is an expert in the field. The article was hurting her career.
As for the hoax article:
The hoax paper was ready to be published, pending an $800 "publication fee"
[Here's the blog post by the author of the hoax paper] (http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/)
No clue. I don't want to start defending a publication company. I heard that there are a series of magazines that will publish stuff for you if you pay them. Unfortunately, this is a growing trend, and is even found in some of the highest respected journals sometimes. I do not condone this practice.
[deleted]
You're using outdated, disproven "debunking" tactics. Step your game up.
That's a common tactic that conspiracy theorists use when they cant argue the actual issue.
Outdated disproven tactics?
Proof: all the people mentioned are listed on the original document.
All have been refuted long ago, AND in here. Outdated and disproven.
Citing the additional authors of the same paper is a piss-poor rebuttal.
Thanks, I was looking for a list like this.
More info:
Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Minnesota. Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU
Kevin R. Ryan, Chemist, former Underwriters Laboratories manager
Frank M. Legge, PhD Chemistry, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia.
Daniel Farnsworth, PhD candidate, Physics, Brigham Young University
Gregg Roberts, BA Psychology, UT Austin, 1990
James R. Gourley, B.S. Chemical Engineering, University of Oklahoma, graduated with Special Distinction
Bradley R. Larsen, MS Geology
+/u/bitcointip @SovereignMan $0.50 verify
I'm not sure exactly what this is. I have not gotten into bitcoins.
It means someone paid you fifty cents for your comment.
[✔] Verified: pa2013 → $0.50 USD (฿0.00141155 bitcoins) → SovereignMan [sign up!] [what is this?]
I really do appreciate the gesture but have no desire to delve into bitcoins.