Thursday, January 19, 2012

Please Read What I Actually Wrote Before Saying My Arguments Are 'Moronic'

James B. of Screw Loose Change recently commented on my FAQ article posted at AE911Truth and, surprise surprise, he wasn't very impressed. He says the claims in my article are "ironic (and moronic)," but the real irony here is that he clearly didn't carefully read what I wrote. So, what are James' brilliant criticisms?

"They then go on to argue that the collapse started in the location where the aircraft did not have its major impact, ignoring the whole point that the fires were the primary cause of the collapse,"

First off, I did NOT ignore the issue of the fires, as I addressed that later in the article. The point I was making is that the collapse began at the floors with minimal damage, meaning that the planes likely would not have disrupted any of the demolition devices placed at those floors. I discuss this issue in greater detail here.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C

This of course is several hundred degrees below the ignition point of Thermite cited above (1700 F = 927C), and well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire, so their own experiment either disproves the conclusions of the article itself, or their assertion that this was Thermite, or in fact... both assertions.

Here James conveniently leaves off what I also wrote in regards to the demolition devices being set off by the fires. My full quote reads:

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition. (emphasis added)

The fact of the matter is that the devices could very well have been designed so that the fires would not have set them off. As Jim Hoffman notes:

Prior to 2001, the national laboratories and Pentagon contractors had developed advanced energetic nanocomposites which, in addition to providing much higher energy densities than conventional high explosives, were engineered to be very stable and require highly specific conditions for detonation. [source]

As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics. [source]

While nanothermite seems to have a lower ignition point than conventional thermite, nanothermite explosives can evidently be engineered to avoid accidental ignition. As for James' claim that (1700 F = 927C) is "well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire," the fact remains that there is no evidence that the fires in the Towers reached that temperature. So no James, my article does not disprove "both assertions." It supports the assertion that both thermate and nanothermite were used to demolish the Towers. The issues of what types of materials were likely used in the Towers and how they could have been used and set off has long been addressed.

James' post is full of nothing but meaningless insults and illogical arguments. Hopefully his reading comprehension improves in the future.

Thursday, January 12, 2012

FAQ # 2: What about the planes that slammed into the Twin Towers? Wouldn’t they have disturbed the demolition devices?

Written by Adam Taylor [Response to attempted debunking of this article]
Thursday, 12 January 2012 16:21

We first frame the issue by noting that the answer to this question does not negate the evidence that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition. The massive amount of evidence gathered by AE911Truth and countless others demonstrates that the combined effects of the impacts and the ensuing fires do not account for the complete and explosive destruction of the WTC skyscrapers.

The explosive destruction of the Twin Towers actually began at floors with minimal damage from the planes. In the North Tower, the collapse began at the 98th floor, which in fact had minimal structural damage. Only the tip of the right wing cut through that floor.

Left: WTC1 north face; Right: Damage relative to a Boeing 767. Note that only the tip of the starboard (right) wing cut through the 98th floor.

According to the NIST report (NCSTAR 1, pg. 87), the collapse of the North Tower began at this floor. Though the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this as the case. The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 indicates that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.

Left: WTC1 before collapse; Right: WTC1 at start of collapse. Blue line denotes 98th floor. Red line denotes approximate area of collapse initiation. Stills taken from video of North Tower collapse

If the demolition was started at the 98th floor, where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then the plane's impact would not have had any serious effect on well-designed devices placed on this floor.

Second, a demolition using advanced nanothermite material (which has been identified in the WTC dust) may help to explain why the fires started by the planes did not set off explosive devices. As noted by Dr. Steven Jones:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

In this experiment, “normal” thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch. Similarly, the “super thermite” found in the WTC dust could not have been ignited by the jet fuel and office fires in the Twin Towers.

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition.

Third, some of the devices were indeed affected by the plane impacts, as is evident from the spout of molten metal seen flowing out of the 81st floor of the South Tower. This would also be consistent with a thermite-based demolition, as noted by Jim Hoffman:

Partly because thermate produces bright orange light while burning, Stage 1 is allowed time to run to completion before Stage 2 commences. In the South Tower, some thermate pushed by the plane crash from the building's core to its corner generates an orange spout lasting from about T-7 to T-2 minutes.

The molten metal seen flowing from the South Tower, which may have been a result of the airplane impacting the demolition materials, is actually further evidence of controlled demolition

Critics contend this material is molten aluminum from Flight 175. However, these claims have been shown to be false. Even if the devices were affected in some way by the planes, this does not automatically mean that the overall demolition of the Towers was affected. If anything, the molten metal flowing from the South Tower is very likely evidence of thermitic-based devices placed in the building which may have been disturbed and ignited by the plane impact itself.

Further exploration of this topic can be found at

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

JREFers acknowledge the nanothermite hypothesis's scientific legitimacy

It seems after almost three years, the debunkers are finally putting up. Chris Mohr has found a scientist willing to independently test the findings of Harrit et al:
Here is my official request for funds to analyze the WTC dust. To summarize, after three months of investigating this, the best person I found for the job is James R. Millette, Ph.D. of MVA Scientific Consultants. He is an independent researcher with extensive experience in forensics and dust analysis. He promises an objective study: "At present, I have no opinion as to whether we will find any active thermitic material. All I can say is that to this point in time we have not found any during the general particle characterizations we have done. Because we have not focused on this particular question in the past analyses, we are proceeding with a careful, forensic scientific study focused on the red-gray chips in a number of WTC dust samples. When I present the data, it will be in front of critical members of the forensic science community... I am an independent researcher without an interest in how the research results come out. Our laboratory is certified under ISO 17025 which includes audits of our accuracy, reliability and integrity. I am a member of the American Academy of Forensic Scientists and have sworn to uphold the high ethical standards of the organization."

Dr. Millette continues to receive input from forensic experts as well as from me and my JREF companions. He has already found red-gray chips using stereomicroscopy and has created initial spectographic analyses of some of the red-gray chips in his lab's possession. He plans to do, at a minimum, a replication of many of the experiments already done in the original Harritt/Jones/Ryan et al Bentham study as well as additional testing by PLM, SEM, TEM and FTIR after sample treatment. I am thinking other tests may be added to the protocol. We will get a full report and he will also make it public.
The JREFers are excited about this, but some truthers a worried this may be a whitewash, and it may very well be, but look at this another way. What we have here is an admission from the JREFers that the Harrit et al paper should be taken seriously. For years, they have simply dismissed it on procedural grounds - questioning the peer-review, calling the journal a "vanity publication", making a big deal out of editorial controversies etc. For years, we've been saying "put up or shut up" and they've been saying there's no need to "put up" because that would just give the paper and the theory undeserved legitimacy. NIST, for example, said that the thermite hypothesis simply wasn't credible enough in their view to warrant investigation.

The fact that they are now attempting to replicate it, even if their intentions are to whitewash it, is an acknowledgement of the nanothermite hypothesis's scientific legitimacy.

Researcher Jeff Hill, who seems to have ignored everything he learnt about the nanothermite paper from his interviews with John-Michael, Adam and David Chandler, comments:
All this testing will do is probably further expose Steven Jone's, etc... as frauds and maybe help misinformed believers of the thermetic pseudo-scientists.
Pseudo-scientists"? Do you even know what "pseudo-science" means? Something is "pseudo-scientific" if it is presented as science but is untestable using the scientific method. Obviously Harrit, Jones etc. are making testable claims because otherwise the debunkers wouldn't be able to do what they are planning to do!

There's something you need to understand about science... you don't have to be right. That's the beauty of it. You can be wrong and still be doing science. In fact, most scientific claims do turn out to be wrong. There's no shame in it, that's how science progresses. And when an idea is found to be wrong, it doesn't mean it loses its status as "science". You're allowed to think Harrit, Jones etc. are wrong if that's what you believe, but don't call them "pseudo-scientists".

And frauds? Scientific "fraud" means to intentionally fabricate data. If you're calling Steven Jones a fraud, you're also calling his colleague Jeff Farrer a fraud. You're also calling Gregg Roberts, Frank Legge etc. frauds. You're also calling Jim Hoffman a fraud. You're also calling Mark Basile and members of Ae911truth who've also tested the red/gray chips frauds. You're also calling everyone who supplied Steven Jones with dust samples frauds... So that's, what, at least 15 concious frauds, none of whom have any apparent motive. Nice conspiracy theory you have there Jeff!

I eagerly await the results of Dr Millette's tests. In fact, I want more independent scientists to look at the red/gray chips. I probably won't trust Dr Millette's tests alone if they fail to replicate the results of Harrit et al, because there's always the possibility that he could be engaging in a deception. However, if we had like 10 different teams of scientists all testing red/gray chips from different dust samples and they all failed to replicate the findings of the original paper, then I would concede to the debunkers.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

New Journal of 9/11 Studies Paper: "No plane at the Pentagon" Theories Refuted

The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact

By John D. Wyndham (PhD, Physics)

Abstract: The widespread belief among those who question the official account of 9/11, that a large plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11, is unsupported by the evidence. The failure of the 9/11 truth movement to reach consensus on this issue after almost a decade is largely due to a failure to rigorously apply the scientific method to each proposed theory. This paper, by so applying the evidence to each proposed theory, shows that a large plane hitting the Pentagon is by far the most plausible theory.

(Full paper)