Slashdot Mirror

Indeed, not a new discovery. Exploding thermite has been well documented in the past.

"I did not. I read it and found it did not say what you implied it did, but then I've got the advantage over you of a career in Engineering and Materials Science and a first exposure to thermite in 1985."

"Did not say what I implied it did"??? Are you sure you are referring to the same paper that I was? It not only DOES say what I implied it did, I challenge you to give me specifics about how you are pretending to refute it.

Now, it is possible that I did confuse you with someone else, but there was someone who argued with me about the veracity of the evidence based merely on the fact that Alex Jones had (later in the process) become involved in publicizing the evidence. That was nothing more than ad hominem and I give it no respect. I am not a fan of Alex Jones, nevertheless, shooting the messenger is not a valid scientific argument.

There is other evidence that thermitic materials were found in the debris: FEMA's own ("Building Performance Study" (see Appendix C) suggests as much, including micrographic evidence.

And it must be noted that "nano-thermite", even according to Wikipedia, has properties that are very different from conventional thermite. That was part of the point I was making.

Abstract here, and there is a downloadable .pdf file.

Not only was it confirmed by other researchers, but by examination of its microscopic composition they narrowed it down to a particular commercial brand, normally available only to government and the military.

The report that says normal office fires melted structural steel?? It's exactly the document that I've been trying to explain is impossible. Their own people called that report a "half-baked farce".

Once again, I invite you to read this peer-reviewed scientific paper from the Open Chemical Physics Journal or any of the other links I have provided previously.

I actually wasn't referring to conspiracy theories. I made no mention of theories of any kind. I'm only talking about the facts of the case and fair questions arising from them. Unpleasant ones, certainly, and difficult ones to consider because of their implications, absolutely.

But since you brought them up, conspiracy theories are generally what you have when you don't have any proof. Proof, as in what the Bush administration said they had that was supposed to link bin laden to the attacks, which they promised to make known "shortly", over 10 years ago and never did. In fact, the taliban offered to deliver bin laden if only the US would produce any such proof. They didn't produce any.

The government claimed that normal office fires caused the pools of molten metal and concrete that was found under the 3 WTC towers. The fact is that's impossible. Remember Building 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. Even with jet fuel added to Buildings 1 and 2, it's impossible. Over 100 accounts from first-responders confirmed the presence of molten metal. Some said it was flowing like lava. Video footage also shows it flowing out of the side of Building 2.

For 20 minutes after the impact and before the roof collapsed, the circular hole in the side of the Pentagon was approximately 14 feet in diameter. This fact is plainly visible in video footage. Where the wings and multi-ton steel and titanium engines should have impacted the building, the windows aren't even broken. These are facts, not theories. They actually said the wings folded up and the plane evaporated. W.T.F.

Scientists are not conspiracy theorists. In fact some of them tend to pursue the truth, no matter where it leads. For example, this peer-reviewed paper was published in an open scientific journal and IMO proves the existence of huge quantities of nano-thermite in the twin towers. It has not been refuted.

It's understandable that some people don't want to consider this kind of information. If you're one of them, then don't click on the link in my signature. Whatever you do, don't google "WTC7". There are some videos on youtube that you should avoid as well, particularly Experts Speak Out and Blueprint For Truth. Even this 5-minute video could ruin your day, so be careful what you click on. You don't have to get in front of this if you don't want to, but calling it a conspiracy theory because the bobble-headed media drones said to might cause one to look foolish one day.

Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance. (Albert Einstein)

The relevant journal is a non-traditional "open access journal" where articles are freely available (pseudo-random sample; others here), but article authors pay the publisher to publish. It's similar to self-publishing. I imagine TOISCIJ is not respected at all since in a brief search the only info I could find on it was related to the fake paper incident. While it is technically a "peer reviewed journal" (or at least it calls itself that, present evidence to the contrary), it's misleading not to immediately point out how it differs from most people's idea of traditional "peer reviewed journals".

Some scandals along the same lines:
  * The Bogdanov affair, where two French twins, one a mathematician and the other a physicist, published apparent nonsense in respectable journals. Physicist John Baez (singer Joan's cousin, actually) called the papers "a mishmash of superficially plausible sentences containing the right buzzwords in approximately the right order. There is no logic or cohesion in what they write."
  * The Schön scandal, where a German physicist claimed breakthroughs and published a number of papers. Journals withdrawing his papers include Science, Physical Review, Applied Physics Letters, Advanced Materials, and Nature.
  * The Sokal affair, where a physicist published a rather hilarious paper in the journal Social Text. To be fair, that article was not peer-reviewed by a physicist.

The relevant journal is a non-traditional "open access journal" where articles are freely available (pseudo-random sample; others here), but article authors pay the publisher to publish. It's similar to self-publishing. I imagine TOISCIJ is not respected at all since in a brief search the only info I could find on it was related to the fake paper incident. While it is technically a "peer reviewed journal" (or at least it calls itself that, present evidence to the contrary), it's misleading not to immediately point out how it differs from most people's idea of traditional "peer reviewed journals".

Some scandals along the same lines:
  * The Bogdanov affair, where two French twins, one a mathematician and the other a physicist, published apparent nonsense in respectable journals. Physicist John Baez (singer Joan's cousin, actually) called the papers "a mishmash of superficially plausible sentences containing the right buzzwords in approximately the right order. There is no logic or cohesion in what they write."
  * The Schön scandal, where a German physicist claimed breakthroughs and published a number of papers. Journals withdrawing his papers include Science, Physical Review, Applied Physics Letters, Advanced Materials, and Nature.
  * The Sokal affair, where a physicist published a rather hilarious paper in the journal Social Text. To be fair, that article was not peer-reviewed by a physicist.