Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
ThrowAway
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by ThrowAway » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:15 pm

first you say he is credible because his paper was peer reviewed and then you say it was credible because it wasnt peer reviewed. The whole tragedy was looked into throughly. They saw his paper was based on conjecture and flimsy science. Im sure he knows what the standard test for these things are and he has had a long time to do them. To this point in time he has not done them. Its my understanding he has only done the preliminary tests. He and his lifes work are a truckload of fail.

Emmiasary- if there is a far out theory about anything you believe it, for fucks sake you believe in atlantis and that they had super technology with out any shred of evidence. thats closer to brainwashing than someone who looks at the evidence and is not predetermined which side they will go with wether its conventional thinking or conspiratorial. You seem to be the epitome of the non-conformity conformist.

Edit-I read your post again noborders and understand now. Hes still a nut job unwilling to do what is necessary to prove his claims. Which peer-reviewed journal was this paper published in?
noborders wrote:
noborders wrote:
ThrowAway wrote:Plus if he is unwilling to allow it to be tested he has as much credibility as the british lady who claims to speak to aliens and said they were coming last year.
Where did you get the idea that he is unwilling to allow it to be tested? Cite your source please
ThrowAway wrote:cite your source that he is credible.
Nice way to evade the question. Since you can't back it up, I call BS on your made up insinuation that Jones is "unwilling to allow it to be tested."

As for his credibility, Jones is a PhD Physicist and this paper was formally published in an established peer-review journal.
ThrowAway wrote::roll: better yet cite any credible source that there were bombs used :roll:

read the thread!! or rtfta. Saying this guy is credible to speak about anything scientific is like saying pete rose should lecture on ethics.
Read the paper before you make an ass out of yourself. "Here's what you need to know (especially if you are not a scientist): UNLESS AN OBJECTOR ACTUALLY PUBLISHES HIS OR HER OBJECTION IN A PEER-REVIEWED ESTABLISHED JOURNAL, THEN THE OBJECTION IS NOT CONSIDERED SERIOUS IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD NOT WORRY ABOUT NON-PUBLISHED OBJECTIONS EITHER.

So how do you, as a non-scientist, discern whether the arguments are valid or not? You should first ask, "is the objection PUBLISHED in an ESTABLISHED PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL?" If not, you can and should say -- "I will wait to see this formally published in a refereed scientific journal. Until then, the published peer-reviewed work by Harrit et al. stands. " (Steven Jones)

Oh, by the way, the government's theory has not been peer-reviewed: http://tinyurl.com/apcvm9
Last edited by ThrowAway on Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

LoopStationZebra
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by LoopStationZebra » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:20 pm

I don't believe there's been one licensed structural engineer, who had access to the site and actual debris, that's gone on or off record stating that explosives may have been used. If there's been one, I'd be curious to read what they have to say...

Also, from BYU
"A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

lol.
I came for the :lol:
But stayed for the :x

Green Lemon
Posts: 392
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:20 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by Green Lemon » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:11 pm

Emissary wrote:
Green Lemon wrote:
Emissary wrote:This thread is going no where. I got out when people started defending the Intial theory that the building pancaked, when even NIST have debunked this theory as ludicrous. If your going to defend the official theory then please start talking about thermal expansion and not pancaking.

Its beyond me why anybody would believe a government entity known to lie to the populace about everything and anything would be trusted above independent tenured professors and architects. The brain washing truly has reached pandemic proportions. By the time we are OAP's it will be common knowledge that the WTC attack was done by the Government (mainly because the usa wont exsist), and all of the naysayers here will accept it without question. Its easier for you to believe the lie and continue your sheltered existence with the bizarre belief that the government is there to look after you rather than the truth that it is a bunch of power hungry motherfuckers who couldn't give a fuck about you. Politics Is just religion for the semi intellectual.

You got out after I pointed out repeatedly that what you were saying about the behavior of steel in building fires - namely that it is invulnerable - is flat out wrong. I backed this up with numerous references pulled from all over the web, and you disappeared.

I am still willing to consider problems with the official line on 9/11- but don't cite preconceived impressions about building materials and expect that to advance the discussion.
You Repeatedly did fuck all apart from ignore arguments you couldn't answer. I dont think i ever said steel was invulnerable, thats a crock of shit. I apparently made one mistake about information regarding compacted steel getting stronger, which you says it doesn't. The information is out there for you to actually discover what happened, you just cant be arsed. Like for instance are you going to watch this

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... leId=13242

are you going to read this

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Crossing-Rubico ... 121&sr=8-4

Until you actually start reading your going to remain ignorant. You can argue with some peon on a music forum who's major is in Music Tech and not Architecture until your blue in the face. I dont understand the physics behind the whole thing, but i do trust the independent scientists who have spent the best part of 7 years finding out the truth. If you dont want to know, then its pointless us arguing with you. Its the equivalent of a scientists arguing with a kid out of Sunday school who just learnt about God.

1) The buildings collapsed into its own footprint like a controlled demolition
2) The buildings collapsed at free fall speed like a controlled demolition
3) The Buildings had squibs coming out of them like a controlled demolition
4) The buildings had a cave in at the top as they collapsed like a controlled demolition
5) The buildings had no resitance as they fell, like a controlled demolition
6) The Dust from the buildings had thermite in it , a known military explosive
7) Numerous witness' say they heard explosions going off before collapse like a controlled demolition
8 ) The administration needed an event to galvanise support for 2 wars

I think you can understand why maybe.....just maybe some of us think it was a controlled demoliton

Awwwright, sorry I thought you did say that (about steel being invulnerable) but apparently you didn't, I guess I got it in the cross talk.

I agree with all your reasons which is why I've bothered to spend more than 5 minutes of my life on this. (Although obviously I have no way to judge about the thermite.)

Anyway, dont get all mad I'm not calling you dumb. I personally know just enough about structural theory to have some kind of informed idea about this shit, but not enough to have certain ideas by any means. I also know that there are at least a few architects and engineers on both sides of the debate.

But I have perused your links a bit, which is when I found out about the diesel fuel being stored in WTC N°7- so that plus 2 planes gives me all the reasons I need to imagine 3 skyscrapers freefalling to the ground. You have a different conclusion, and I respect that.
--
first 1k as chrysalis33rpm.

LoopStationZebra
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by LoopStationZebra » Sat Apr 18, 2009 3:46 pm

mikemc wrote:On the flip side of the argument, I think the viscoelastic supports aka big rubbery antisway washers may have not withstood the heat and may have even caught fire. That would leave the floors with only a portion of their support. Add the weight of some collapsed floors on top of a poorly supported lower floor, and you could see how it might happen on it's own.

The viscoelastic dampers are basically rubber, so I think they probably melted fairly quickly. They don't provide any structural support at all - two slabs of rubber sandwiched around a large plate that's welded to the bottom chord of the truss. The plate and dampers sit within a very large C-Channel. Like a male/female connection. If they melted, the support is still very much there - just not as cushy, lol.

:)

*shrug* I like talking about this - even if it is years later and things get heated. If folks think this thread is long, they need to go to some of the Truther or MatSci forums. Holy Shit. There's a thread in a MatSci forum that got to be 40 pages long in 2 1/2 days; with epic chem composition discussions that were all but lost on me. Basically a bunch of serious geeks discussing the pros and cons of the Jones report. Most comments are cons and get savage. Dudes that actually DO have the expertise to review every aspect of the report and have found numerous problems. Here's an example.

Perhaps you could pass this on to Steven Jones:

One of the corner stones of Harrit et al’s “Active Thermite” paper is the assertion that the bi-layered chips contain elemental aluminum. The basis for this claim is the XEDS spectrum presented in Figure 17 of the paper. Figure 17 shows the X-ray fluorescence spectrum of an area located within the red side of a WTC red/gray chip after exposure to methyl ethyl ketone for 55 hours.

The most important features of the Figure 17 spectrum are a large Al peak at 1.49 keV and a much smaller O peak at 0.52 keV. (The additional C peak at 0.28 keV is probably organic carbon contamination and is not relevant to the present discussion).

On page 18 of the “Active Thermitic” paper Harrit et al. have this to say about the XEDS spectrum in Figure 17:

“Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminium significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus while some of the aluminium may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all the aluminium; some of the aluminium must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result.”

The “conventional quantification routine” referred to by Harrit et al would be a computer program based on X-ray attenuation coefficients that are used to correct for the variable yields of X-rays emitted at different energies in different materials. The characteristic X-ray emissions of oxygen and aluminium are, as we have seen, ~ 1 keV. At this energy, the linear attenuation coefficient of X-rays passing through O is about four times that of the same X-rays in Al. This means that the oxygen peaks in XRF-spectra emitted by materials with equal concentrations of Al and O, are about ¼ the intensity of the aluminum peaks.

This 1:4 O/Al peak intensity ratio is in fact observed in published spectra of alumina, Al2O3, which is very nearly 50 % O and 50 % Al (by weight!). Thus I would refer the reader to the XEDS spectrum of nano-Al2O3 in the paper by Xi Jin Xu published in Materials Letters 60, 2331, (2006), and the spectrum of Al203 particles produced by a thermite reaction reported by N. Ilic in Materials Characterization 42, 243, (1999). These spectra have an O/Al peak ratio of 0.25 +/- 0.05; Harrit et al’s “aluminium rich” area of the red chip has an O/Al ratio of 0.2 +/- 0.01. Thus the observed level of aluminium “enrichment” in the red chips, above and beyond the level of Al in pure Al2O3, is very small ( ~ 5 % !!!) and shows that the red chips contain far more Al2O3 than elemental Al.

Thus it can hardly be said that the red chips are a "thermitic material" when the necessary 50 %metallic aluminum component is sadly lacking .....


A MatScientist, talking not from a position of emotion but a position of knowledge. There are dozen upon dozens more posts like that. There's a few of em who are supporting the Jones report, but they are waaaay in the minority. Like us, they swear at each other as well, but generally do it using chemical intensity ratios, lol.

No XRD analysis is absolutely the most common complaint, however. Again, it's the difference between looking at a photo of fried chicken and actually TESTing the shit to make sure it's fried chicken. :P
I came for the :lol:
But stayed for the :x

ThrowAway
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by ThrowAway » Sat Apr 18, 2009 9:26 pm

Please post more or give me a link to that post you quoted from loopstation.

noborders
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 10:16 am

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by noborders » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:25 am

Throwaway, the paper was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal: http://tinyurl.com/de6448
LoopStationZebra wrote:I don't believe there's been one licensed structural engineer, who had access to the site and actual debris, that's gone on or off record stating that explosives may have been used. If there's been one, I'd be curious to read what they have to say...

Also, from BYU
"A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
:roll:
BYU administrators conducted internal reviews of the paper, and allowed Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, who is their current Transmission Electron Microscopy Lab Manager, to be listed, with BYU affiliation, as the second author of the paper. And as Jones pointed out... "Our results have passed the gauntlet of peer-review (including in this case, review at BYU consistent with the fact that there are two authors from BYU)."

Furthermore, in the interview posted on this thread, Jones points out that... "Usually peer-review is done completely anonymously, but it is possible for a reviewer to identify himself. In this case one of the reviewers identified himself as a physics professor, a fellow of the American Physical Society. This fellow is well credentialed, with something like 80 peer-reviewed papers of his own." Note that "The American Physical Society is the world's second largest organization of physicists, and publishes more than a dozen science journals, including the world renowned Physical Review and Physical Review Letters." And finally, "Important features of the research have been independently corroborated by Mark Basile in New Hampshire and by physicist Frédéric Henry-Couannier in France., proceeding from earlier scientific reports on these discoveries (e.g., by Prof. Jones speaking at a Physics Dept. Colloquium at Utah Valley University last year.) We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers."

LoopStationZebra
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by LoopStationZebra » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:41 am

ThrowAway wrote:Please post more or give me a link to that post you quoted from loopstation.
Oh, yeah right. Should have posted a link before.

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/activ ... -t150.html

^An excellent thread, really.

In fact, that entire forum is really quite good. There's folks on all sides of the issue, and threads usually remain pretty civil. I've learned a lot in the past couple days of skimming. In fact, there's a great thread called "Would the cores fall over without the perimeter walls?" that's up near the top at the moment. Good timing. Like most things though, still a lot of speculation and hypothesizing going on...
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/would ... s-t38.html

What's cool is that I don't get the sense that this is a Truther website. It's a bunch of pretty smart cats asking some very good questions on ALL sides of the issue.

What's odd - and didn't even occur to me - is that for many engineers/physicists/material scientists/etc, 911 has become One Big Giant Intellectual Exercise and Puzzle. Never mind loss of life, conspiracy, dirty dealings, truth, falsehoods, etc, whatever. They see it as a sort of ongoing living lab; in which they can postulate theories and work up new equations to explain what happened - or what might have happened if THIS had occurred instead. Sort of testing their own mettle or something. It's weird and I'm not explaining it well. You just have to visit the site and read some of the threads. You'll get what I'm talking about. :?
I came for the :lol:
But stayed for the :x

LoopStationZebra
Posts: 10586
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 5:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by LoopStationZebra » Sun Apr 19, 2009 12:46 am

noborders wrote: We understand that details will soon be forthcoming from these independent researchers.

I'll be waiting. :P
I came for the :lol:
But stayed for the :x

ThrowAway
Posts: 1614
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:13 pm

Re: Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust

Post by ThrowAway » Sun Apr 19, 2009 1:33 am

I wish I could understand more than 5% of what they are discussing.

Post Reply