"9 different scientists that found conclusive evidence of nano-thermite"

[William Seger]

No, they didn't. The conclusions they draw simply do not follow from their own data, even if the data are accepted at face value and the serious flaws in their methodology are overlooked. The most outrageous example is the major "conclusion": Their own experiments show that the chips neither look like nor behave like any known form of thermite, so they "conclude" that it must be some unknown form of thermite! That, after failing to actual prove any thermitic reaction and after ignoring the evidence that there wasn't any thermitic reaction at all, just ordinary organic material burning in air. That's not just unscientific; it's anti-science. There's a reason that paper could never be published in a real peer-reviewed journal, and why nobody but crackpots take it seriously: it's crap. And now, the chips have been identified as a particular type of paint that was used in abundance in the buildings. Game over.

[The Doctor.]

1. Great! Let's see the flaws.

I love a good methodological breakdown.

I'll happily look at the point-for-point peer-review smackdown of, let's say, Harrit's paper. Thing is, I can't seem to find one. I'm glad you can!

I really appreciate it!

[William Seger]

2. No need to go that far

Use any source you trust to look up the ignition temperature and the energy density of thermite. Then, check the paper and note that the chips they tested ignited at more than 100 degrees C lower temperature than thermite and had an energy density of more than twice that of thermite. Now, see if you can find any justification in the paper for ignoring this clear evidence that it's NOT thermite and for ignoring the fact that those numbers are reasonable for organic material such as kaolin which is used as paint binder. There won't be any "peer-reviewed" articles debunking this nonsense, because as I said, nobody but crackpots take it that seriously, but there are several threads on the JREF forum that discuss it in excruciating detail, if you have a mind to dig into them.

But anyway, I gave you a link to the thread where the paint chips were identified. If you still think the silly paper is debatable, then the significance of that finding hasn't sunk in yet.

[The Doctor.]

3. So, you respond in a thread about someone using a 'bait and switch' deception,

And think I'm going to fall for the same thing when you do it?

That's an insult to both our intelligence. Well, more yours. Here's the thing that's really, really interesting about what you just said;

"the chips they tested ignited at more than 100 degrees C lower temperature than thermite and had an energy density of more than twice that of thermite"

Sooo... they painted a building with a substance more flammable and with higher energy than thermite?!?!? GENIUS!

:wtf:

You all really need to run your talking points through a couple of checks before fielding them.

2 Points; 1) As has been pointed out all over this thread, what was found was nano-thermite, which does, as you so blithely pointed out, ignite at a lower temperature and release more energy than regular thermite. 2) Yes, there were paint chips in the samples. They did not ignite at the same low temperature that the actual nano-thermite did.

The paper isn't 'debatable' if you have nothing with which to dispute it. It's not that there is 'no need' to 'go that far', it's that you can't go anywhere.

[William Seger]

4. They painted the building with various standard rustproofing paints

> 1) As has been pointed out all over this thread, what was found was nano-thermite, which does, as you so blithely pointed out, ignite at a lower and release more energy than regular thermite.

Utter horseshit. Nano-thermite burns faster because of a higher surface area ratio, but it's exactly the same chemical reaction as ordinary thermite.

> 2) Yes, there were paint chips in the samples. They did not ignite at the same low temperature that the actual nano-thermite did.

There's absolutely nothing in the paper that remotely resembles that assertion.

It's ironic that you started this thread with an attempt to question Kay's credibility...

ETA: Did I mention that the paint chips have been identified?

[The Doctor.]

5. So, what... just make shit up?

I didn't say the paper mentions them. But it doesn't matter what I say when you're just going to believe what you want.

Kay lied, that's a fact. That he did it by substituting one substance for another does not make it anything but a lie.


You're going to believe what you want to despite the reality. You're going to deny what the examination of the debris found even though you have not a single thing you can point to which puts the findings or methodology in doubt. You even admit that something more effective than regular thermite was found, yet somehow that doesn't seem even a little suspicious to you.

There's no reasoning with unreasonable people.

[William Seger]

6. No offense, of course, but your perception of reality...

... seems to involve a complex set of interlocking delusions.

Did I mention that the chips that bear no resemblance to thermite bear a remarkable resemblance to the joist paint?

[The Doctor.]

7. Fascinating.

How you can claim that what they found ignited at lower temperature and gave off more energy than thermite, and then call that 'paint chips', is just stunning.

You have done a remarkable job in ensuring that I am not the one with the delusions, as so many of your statements are so completely detached from reality and logic.

The reality is that the joist paint ignites at much higher temperatures and gives off very little energy.

That you can so easily make both contradictory and deliberately ignorant statements, and go on believing that you somehow make perfect sense while I am 'delusional' is fascinating to me. Totally fascinating.



Let's put this to the test; "Why did those 'paint chips' ignite so easily (easier than thermite) and give off more energy than thermite?"

Do paint chips normally do this?

[William Seger]

8. You have no idea what you're talking about

> How you can claim that what they found ignited at lower temperature and gave off more energy than thermite, and then call that 'paint chips', is just stunning.

To you, perhaps, but not to anyone who understands what that does and doesn't mean. It isn't the energy density but rather the rate of release that allows thermite get hot enough to melt steel and RDX to explode.

> You have done a remarkable job in ensuring that I am not the one with the delusions, as so many of your statements are so completely detached from reality and logic.

I've seen other examples of what you consider "reality and logic" and I am very proud to be "detached" from them as well.

> The reality is that the joist paint ignites at much higher temperatures and gives off very little energy.

Seems to me the reality is you have no idea what you're talking about.

> Let's put this to the test; "Why did those 'paint chips' ignite so easily (easier than thermite) and give off more energy than thermite?"

Do paint chips normally do this?

Obviously it depends on the specific paint, but yes, many types of paint have that characteristic. Since Harrit's "a" to "d" paint chips have been identified as Laclede LREP-10001 -- did I mention that already? -- then we need to know the properties of that specific paint. But first, before I go hunting for that, here's a question for you: Given that a rational person will look at those chips and assume that they're probably paint chips -- Harrit admits as much in the paper -- why does this "peer-reviewed" paper do such an incredibly half-assed job of ruling out paint chips? These "scientists" didn't even attempt to find out what kind of paint might have been used in the WTC (even though it's in the NIST report), much less attempt to determine its characteristics. Despite their extraordinary claim of finding thermite (that just happens to look exactly like paint chips and doesn't behave like thermite), they believe it should be assumed to be thermite unless someone else can prove it's paint! "To merit consideration, any assertion that a prosaic substance such as paint could match the characteristics we have described would have to be accompanied by empirical demonstration using a sample of the proposed material, including SEM/XEDS and DSC analyses." It's this kind of stuff that leads some people to think that these guys aren't just conspiracy crackpots and crappy scientists: they're deliberate frauds. So my question to you is, why is the answer to your question not already in that "peer-reviewed" paper?

[jberryhill]

9. "Do paint chips normally do this?"

Interestingly, one of the hypotheses concerning the burning of the Hindenburg is a thermitic reaction involving the aluminum-containing paint which was used on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Incendiary_paint_theory

The incendiary paint theory was proposed in 1996 by retired NASA scientist Addison Bain, stating that the doping compound of the airship was the cause of the fire.

...

Proponents of this theory point out that the coatings on the fabric contained both iron oxide and aluminum-impregnated cellulose acetate butyrate (CAB). These components remain potentially reactive even after fully setting. In fact, iron oxide and aluminum can be used as components of solid rocket fuel or thermite.

------------

Now, while that theory is disfavored, you have a real opportunity here.

The other part of the problem with all thermite theories, nano or otherwise, is the mechanics of using it to produce the observed collapse.

So, why not just shoot two birds with one stone and say, "Of course it looks like paint chips, because the nano-thermite was applied and cleverly disguised as paint!"

That also solves the problem of demolition prep as well.

What sucks is being able to come up with better truther theories than the truthers.