Jenkins misleads by linking Pentagon plane impact theory to AE911Truth


Jenkins cut Pentagon section out of September 11: The New Pearl Harbor without permission.

October 19, 2015

By Craig McKee

In my last post, I deconstructed David Chandler’s very disturbing Pentagon presentation at last month’s 9/11 Truth Film Festival in Oakland, CA. But as troubling as his reinforcement of most of the official story was, it wasn’t the only talk at the festival given by a member of his “Team” of researchers.

Festival organizer Ken Jenkins—who along with Chandler wants the rest of the Truth Movement to believe a large plane actually hit the Pentagon as the official story claims—tried in his brief talk to link his Team’s Pentagon theory with the widely supported position advanced by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth that the World Trade Center towers were brought down in controlled demolitions. If you liked controlled demolition, you’ll love a large plane hitting the Pentagon!

It was six minutes of pure spin and cleverly worded manipulation.

Here is how Jenkins explained it:

“… AE911Truth was founded on the idea that a growing group of trained professionals would use the scientific method to create a converging set of ideas and theories concerning the three World Trade Center demolitions. With that guided group approach, the result is that AE has a comparative minimal amount of infighting regarding their central theory, that of controlled demolition. In more recent years, some of the same scientists and engineers that helped make AE so successful have turned their attention to the unanswered questions at the Pentagon. There now exists a growing body of scholarly papers, web sites, and group efforts utilizing the scientific method to examine these Pentagon questions, and they have converged on a central thesis that challenges some of our persistent beliefs within our movement.”

This slippery and disingenuous statement requires some dissection. Notice that the position he doesn’t approve of is described as “persistent beliefs” while he and the Team are a “growing group of trained professionals” who have “a growing body of scholarly papers.”

The reason a body of “scholarly papers” and “group efforts” is growing is because the same small Team keeps repackaging their discredited ideas in paper after paper, giving a false impression that their numbers are increasing and that the movement is heading in their direction.

They are not, and it is not.

While he doesn’t say it straight out, Jenkins creates the impression that the brain trust of AE911Truth itself, after establishing the case for controlled demolition, has moved on to the task of proving that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon. I wonder if Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, and Richard Gage got that memo. I wonder if the more than 2,300 architects and engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition got it. My hunch is that none of the above wishes Ken Jenkins or David Chandler to speak for them on the Pentagon.

Festival plans changed

The original plan at the festival was to have Jenkins screen his own film, The Pentagon Plane Puzzle, but  when it wasn’t going to be finished in time, it was decided that he would show a 30-minute preview (really a chunk of the film dealing with what witnesses saw) preceded by a live six-minute introduction.

“The final film, which I hope to premiere here next year, will cover the full spectrum of evidence as it is examined through the scientific method. Today David Chandler will be presenting much of the additional information immediately after this film preview.”

Considerable discussion took place within the group that organizes the festival, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance, concerning how, or whether, the Pentagon would be dealt with at both the 2014 and 2015 festivals. Some wanted Barbara Honegger’s video presentation Behind the Smoke Curtain to be included in the 2014 festival, but Jenkins was adamantly opposed. An agreement was made to wait until 2015 festival to screen Smoke Curtain so that Jenkins could have time to produce a film countering Honegger’s position. Only once it was clear that Plane Puzzle would not be finished in time for 2015, Chandler was added as a speaker.

In my last post, I and my co-authors reiterated something I’ve been saying for nearly five years: that Chandler is part of an organized and co-ordinated Team of researchers who want to convince us that a 757 hit the Pentagon, relying mostly on elements of the official story to do it. (There is nothing wrong with researchers working together, of course, but there is when they leave the false impression that they just happened to respect and cite each other’s work and that they all reached their common conclusions independently.)

In an amazing piece of timing, the existence of the Team was confirmed just two days after the article was posted when Chandler wrote to the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance announcing that a new paper with seven co-authors would be released soon. Here was his message:

Thank you for the honorarium. I appreciate it. Mine was not an easy talk to give this year, and the restrictions made it a little harder, but although it did not make me more popular, I thought it was an important statement to make. Please be alert to the upcoming paper by John Wyndham, Frank Legge, Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley, Jon Cole, Ken Jenkins, and myself with a definitive reply to Barbara Honegger’s theories. Popularity is not the name of the game. We use the word Truth a lot, and the process of discerning truth is as important as the end results. Thank you for inviting me to speak. –David Chandler

I have identified all seven of the listed co-authors as being Team members in past articles, and there they are, working on a single paper together. So what I have been saying is now out in the open. It’s what I would characterize as an organized effort to steer the Truth Movement away from some of the strongest evidence we have that 9/11 was an inside job.

The “we use the word Truth a lot” is a jab at what I wrote—that the group uses the word “science” a lot to give their claims more credibility. At least we know he read it.

It’s also interesting that they appear to have turned their attention to Barbara Honegger’s research after spending several years going after Citizen Investigation Team and its contention that credible witnesses put the flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon on the north side of the former Citgo gas station. This path is irreconcilable with the damage (downed light poles, alleged entrance hole, alleged exit hole). It’s as if they think they have successfully dispensed with CIT so now they want to move on to Honegger.

It will be interesting to see what the Team comes up with in the Honegger paper (I also have serious issues with some of her conclusions, but I agree with her that no airliner hit the Pentagon and that explosives inside the building were used to simulate a crash), and it will be interesting to see how much of what they come up with actually contradicts the official story. Not much, if Chandler’s talk is any indication.

Diverging theories?

But let’s get back to Jenkins’ carefully crafted film introduction, which was packed with some very revealing details. He starts his remarks by lamenting how the Truth Movement has been mired in “endless debate” and “endless war” over the Pentagon for 14 years now. Of course, he sees those on his side of the debate as the best hope to end the division using “science.”

“A long series of diverging and mutually contradictory theories have been put forth by various individuals, mostly based on speculation and partial, selective evidence. The result is a movement that is divided and at odds with itself making us weaker and less effective in our mission of reaching the public with our alternate narrative regarding the events of 9/11.”

I don’t know what “long series of diverging and mutually contradictory theories” he’s talking about, but he knows that the main disagreement is between the vast majority of truthers, who believe a 757 impact never took place, and his group, which is adamant about convincing us that it did. Sure there are other theories that are based on speculation—like a missile impact—but it is disingenuous to lump those baseless theories in with those are based on solid evidence. Among the most solid research done on the Pentagon is that done by CIT and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Nothing diverging, nothing contradictory.

Jenkins dismisses the majority opinion, claiming it is based on “speculation and partial, selective evidence.” The “speculation” reference can be found all through the “scholarly papers” of the Team.

Contrary to what Jenkins says, it is not “diverging” theories that are dividing the movement, it is he and his Team that are doing that by going after those who offer the most effective challenges to the official story rather than going after the official story itself. Without Jenkins, Chandler, and the other members of the Team, the movement would be relatively united that a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon just as an impressive array of evidence indicates.

Jenkins used his introduction to dip into the Team’s familiar talking points, mentioning “the scientific method” no fewer than four times, doing his part to imprint the term on our memory and add an artificial credibility to the group’s work. The rest of the team loves the term also and uses it over and over (In John Wyndham’s paper “The Pentagon Attack: Problems with Theories Alternative to Large Plane Impact” you’ll find it mentioned five times). It seems that telling us they are using the scientific method is even more important than actually using it. You can find all their “scholarly papers” on the predictably named scientificmethod911.org web site.

Jenkins had this to say about how his film will break new ground:

“The film preview you are about to see, The Pentagon Plane Puzzle, will be the first time by members of the 9/11 Truth Movement we’ll apply the scientific method to the long-debated question of whether or not a 757 airliner hit the Pentagon and whether that plane was indeed Flight 77. Based in large part on the growing body of papers by researchers, scientists and engineers within the 9/11 Truth Movement, this film will explore all the available evidence, including recent discoveries that many within our movement don’t even yet know about.”

What’s really disturbing about Jenkins is that he, like the rest of the Team, seems to have an ideological and New Pearl Harbordogmatic drive to undermine any evidence that no plane crash took place at the Pentagon. When I spoke to him in June of this year, I mentioned that Massimo Mazzucco, in his film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, had showed very convincingly that there were differences between the two camera views that purport to show a plane crossing the Pentagon lawn. Frames from the two views, which come from very similar angles, are synchronized by a “multiplexer,” and this is confirmed by the fact that in all corresponding frames, the shape of the smoke clouds is identical. The only frames that show any differences are the ones where the alleged plane appears. While the smoke cloud remains identical in those frames, they show a white blur that is supposed to be a plane, but in different positions. This proves that the video was doctored and that it is, at the very least, part of a cover-up.

Jenkins said he was disappointed that he and Mazzucco could not have worked together on this (implying that he could have saved the filmmaker from making a terrible mistake, although there is absolutely no reason to think any mistake was made), and he questioned whether Mazzucco had considered what type of multiplexer had been used because there are different kinds, and that could affect whether his conclusions are correct. Even when we have solid proof that falsified evidence has been created to convince us that a real plane crashed, Jenkins wants to find a way to discount that evidence.

“Well then he has an agenda – either intentionally or unintentionally,” Mazzucco said in an interview. “But it’s interesting he would even feel the need to debunk that.”

Mazzucco said he collaborated closely with Italian researcher Pier Paolo Murru, who discovered the video anomaly and who was extremely demanding about how his findings were described in the film as well as wanting to be sure that the wording was accurate and precise.

“So when I put that thing out I knew it was correct,” Mazzucco said. “So I don’t fear any debunking on that.”

Psychological barriers

Jenkins says his future film, which will now likely premiere at next year’s festival, will also address the psychological barriers that truth seekers face. I think this is a good topic and one that I know Jenkins has looked at in the past. But, as he explains, it’s not just those who believe the official story who have to overcome barriers, it’s also those in the movement who have those “persistent beliefs” mentioned earlier. He said:

“Just as our movement has long ago realized that one of our primary obstacles to acceptance of our alternative theory of 9/11 are psychological, we also experience similar psychological resistance within our movement, resistance to beliefs that have long held dominance.”

Jenkins says he’ll look at three barriers in particular: confirmation bias, primacy bias, and the persistence of discredited beliefs. Of course, we’ll have to wait for the film to know for sure how he will apply these to the Pentagon, but I have a pretty good idea. All three will be used to claim that truthers cling to their long-held view that no plane hit the Pentagon despite all of that “new information” and those “scholarly papers.” In other words, there are psychological reasons that so many people still believe a plane did not hit the Pentagon, just as “debunkers” often claim there are psychological reasons why some don’t believe the official story of 9/11. His group has scholarship and science, while others only have “beliefs.”

Finally, he said:

“That means we must let go of beliefs that do not align with the full and complete objective, evidence.”

I have a pretty good idea what he wants us all to “let go of” and what he’d like us to put in its place.

Mazzucco, in researching his film, says he examined all the “scholarly papers” by the group very carefully but did not find anything persuasive in them.

“I discarded immediately the Legge/Chandler paper because of course the first thing I did was go and check the sources they used for that list of witnesses, and when I got down to 20 and I couldn’t find anyone I said something is wrong with this. That’s why I call it junk. And I don’t use the word “junk” very easily. In terms of a researcher, unsupported and undocumented witnesses are junk. And Craig Ranke (of CIT, which made the film National Security Alert) has done the opposite: he’s put name and last name of people and what they say. It’s on the spot, and it’s on camera.”

Pentagon section gets chopped

To see just how determined Jenkins is to bring the movement around to the “complete objective evidence” that most of the Pentagon official story is true, you have to go back to last year’s film festival.

Jenkins got permission from Mazzucco to screen New Pearl Harbor (which is five hours long) at the 2014 festival. The two had discussed the Pentagon and found that they could not agree on what the evidence shows. While Mazzucco does not rule out the impact of a smaller aircraft, he does present a very convincing case—yes, based on science—that the evidence is not consistent with a large plane impact.

Jenkins, who is a video producer, said the film was about half an hour too long and that he could trim sections of it to fit it into the festival schedule. But instead of cutting small portions from different sections of the film—as Mazzucco says he was led to believe would happen—Jenkins just cut out the whole Pentagon section.

“He never said he would cut out the whole Pentagon chapter of course,” Mazzucco said. “I would have said no as strongly as I could. That’s not trimming here and there, that’s cutting a whole half hour from the film. That told me where he stood, and that was the end of my interest in a constructive relationship.”

As I mentioned in the last Truth and Shadows post, Chandler, Frank Legge, and John Wyndham wrote to Mazzucco trying to get him to change the Pentagon section of New Pearl Harbor, which took him three years to make. He declined and stands by all the conclusions in his film.

“All the arguments that they used are exactly the same arguments that the debunkers use,” Mazzucco asserts.

Not only did Jenkins cut the Pentagon section (which he did not approve of), but he sold copies of the film with the same cuts. He was also heard describing his cut of the film as the “science safe” version. This caused quite a controversy within the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and actually resulted in the group sending an apology letter to Mazzucco after much internal debate.

“The problem is not Ken Jenkins,” Mazzucco said. “Ken Jenkins is just the victim of this problem. Somebody must have worked his brain and other people’s brains enough with this scientific bullshit that they actually fell for it. He’s probably a real truther doing it in all honesty. And if he’s not, he’s doing a really bad job.”

It’s clear from this incident, and from what happened this year, and what this Team has been doing for several years now, that they will attack anyone who takes the position that a plane crash was faked at the Pentagon. They appear not to be concerned with what is false in the official story but just with what they claim is false in what other truthers are saying.

I do want to make clear that I don’t have anything personal against any of these people. The only person I’ve spoken to live is Jenkins (once this summer on Skype and once on the Kevin Barrett Show). He seems like a nice enough fellow. He says in his address that we have to find ways to discuss the subject at hand without resorting to ridicule. I agree that anyone who is sincere in seeking the truth should be treated with respect. But I also do not believe that those who are leading us astray should get a free pass just because we all want to appear to be getting along.

I wrote this in the last article and I’ll write it again: this group has done enormous damage to the 9/11 truth seeking effort, and, if anything, it appears they want to accelerate that effort. They are viewed as being credible and respectable by some because of their excellent work on the World Trade Center destruction, and they are cashing that in to challenge anyone who takes the position that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.

After 14 years, a clear majority of the Truth Movement does not agree with Jenkins or the Team. This point is not contested, even by them. And yet, this small minority of “scientists” thinks they must rescue our credibility by convincing virtually the whole movement to reverse itself and adopt a position that non-truthers won’t find “ridiculous.”

This is very weak. How can this group actually believe that sticking much closer to the official story 14 YEARS INTO THIS FIGHT is going to help us reach the breakthrough we all agree is needed? It’s so illogical that one has to wonder what they are really trying to achieve and why.

The fact that this group represents “some of the same scientists and engineers” that established controlled demolition as the movement’s dominant position makes their efforts that much more troubling. How can people like Chandler, Jenkins, Cole, and Ryan do such positive things for the cause of truth in other areas and then devote almost all their time spent on the Pentagon to opposing those who oppose the official story?

This is much more of a mystery than what actually happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

563 comments

  1. Mounds of evidence (physical, circumstantial, testimonial, qui bono, photographic) exists to commence indictments. Chandler is spending his credibility on a matter that can be cleared up by convening grand juries, issueing indictments and conducting interrogations.

    Strategic thinking is missing here as the Northern California group (dubious at best in their sincerity) divert attention from achieving 9-11 justice and promoting divisiveness.

    http://911JusticeCampaign.org

    And, if this post is not allowed to appear as my handful of postings on the other topic have been “moderated” and omitted, what we have is a mental masturbation game to keep us from the strategic focus of achieving 9-11 justice.

    How does plane or no plane change a list of key suspects or stop us from bringing indictments?

    1. “How does plane or no plane change a list of key suspects or stop us from bringing indictments?”~rediscover911com

      It doesn’t rediscover, the absolutely corrupt system that perpetrated 9/11 in the first place is what stops us from bringing indictments.

      Do you know what the word “jejune” means rediscover? Look it up. Think on it.
      \\][//

      1. There is nothing to stop groups of citizens from forming their own grand juries, considering evidence, bringing indictments and broadcasting their findings.

        Organizing citizens grand juries in as many counties as we are able, IMO, would be more constructive than time and energy spent mud-wrestling with pigs and feeding the trolls.

        Thanks for the new word, ‘jejune’. I’ll stick to using ‘naive’, as it communicates the essentials clearly to a wider audience.

        A word for those who have concluded that there is nothing of “the system” to achieve justice is:
        ‘resignation’. In being resigned to the expected fate of a failed system, we fulfill our expectations. Righteous resignation is its own enemy.

        You can say I’m a dreamer. But, I’m not the only one.

        1. “You can say I’m a dreamer. But, I’m not the only one”~rediscover911com

          Oooow kewl daddio!

          So-called “cynicism” is just a practical point of view that recognizes “hope” as mere wishful thinking.
          \\][//

        2. Isn’t this what we are already doing and have already done? Haven’t we already formed our grand jury and considered the evidence and handed down indictments and broadcast our findings?

          We have already done this and in my view the good news is that it worked and is working. Each day more and more people become truthers and reject the lies of the government and whore media. Each and every day more and more people are preparing to stand their ground and have drawn their line in the sand.

          For example I have drawn my line in the sand on several issues but to give you one example: In California where I live the governor has passed a law saying we must be vaccinated. I will not be vaccinated and I am not moving so you draw your own conclusion about what that means.

          When people en masse (thank you Mr. Syed) draw their own lines in the sand and really mean it then this simmering world wide revolution will kick into high gear and some big changes will come. Right now many people still allow fear to control them. When that fear is gone the whole world is going to change. Have you drawn your line(s) in the sand?

        1. rediscover911com,

          The so-called “government” has been constitutionally ultra vires for more that 200 years! Do you think DC just lost its virginity on 9/11?? It has been run by whores and con men in a criminal syndicate for centuries. If “the People” weren’t just as corrupt and morally weak as the so called leaders, maybe something could be done about this. But they are NOT; the pathology of society is deeper than the surface level analysis you have made.

          NOW, YOU can do anything you want, YOU can start your grand jury, you can petition these corrupt and ignorant masses for the redress you certainly will not receive from the “government”. Do what YOU think best. But don’t give ME your holier than thou nannyshit, by hypocritically posting a comment on a blog; which is exactly what you claim our error is!

          \\][//

        2. “You can say I’m a dreamer. But, I’m not the only one.”

          “What we have are absolutely corrupt agents operating “the system”. The core of the system (The Constitution) proscribes mechanisms for dealing with the corrupt agents.” -rediscover911com

          This is exactly where the grandest of the grand illusions lies.

          We still set the boundaries of our thinking within the notion that there is a rogue, sinister, covert and manipulative group within our government that have taken control over our destiny… If we could just expose them… If we could just vote in people who can correct the course they have set us on…

          The thing is this level of infestation of the political system may have been the case perhaps in 1913 when they established the federal reserve, or in 1914 when the U.S. was taken to war, or in 1941 when they gamed the American people with Pearl Harbor, or in 1963 when they slaughtered the president in front off the whole world.

          But, we are now in 2015. To borrow a term from researcher Ole Dammegard, the United States has been under a Coup d’etat in slow motion for over a century, if not more. And, by now, the coup is total and complete. So, there is really no point in “dreaming” for a smooth, ethical, legal and peaceful flushing of this cancer any time soon. You can indict as many of them as you want… Most top level criminals of 9/11 are out of commission, and their heirs, apprentices and agents have taken over and are busy expanding their grip.

          One bit of good news is that, even though their power and resources, and their willingness to use them against the people is limitless, their wisdom is not. Each such cycle in history has eventually expired. But not before taking a huge percentage of the population down with them.

        1. “Our founding fathers … naive? … their aspirations … “jejune”?”~rediscover911com

          Yes indeed. ‘Government’ is a racket; the protection racket to be specific. Wise men have known this for ages.
          \\][//

  2. “growing group of trained professionals” who have “a growing body of scholarly papers.” ~Jenkins

    That sounds very much like a cancer going viral to me. Compounded absurdities are no less absurd, they are just compounded. Thus more dangerous.

    Where is the funding for this small splinter group who are pushing the official story coming from? This doesn’t sound like the shoe-string operation that it is trying to appear as.
    I still suspect the g-men are behind this is some way.

    This 9/11 constabulary cannot have simply begun by miraculous conception. There is official spermatozoa swimming through the channels somewhere.
    \\][//

  3. “I discarded immediately the Legge/Chandler paper because of course the first thing I did was go and check the sources they used for that list of witnesses, and when I got down to 20 and I couldn’t find anyone I said something is wrong with this. That’s why I call it junk. And I don’t use the word “junk” very easily. In terms of a researcher, unsupported and undocumented witnesses are junk. And Craig Ranke (of CIT, which made the film National Security Alert) has done the opposite: he’s put name and last name of people and what they say. It’s on the spot, and it’s on camera.”

    “He never said he would cut out the whole Pentagon chapter of course,” Mazzucco said. “I would have said no as strongly as I could. That’s not trimming here and there, that’s cutting a whole half hour from the film. That told me where he stood, and that was the end of my interest in a constructive relationship.”

    “The problem is not Ken Jenkins,” Mazzucco said. “Ken Jenkins is just the victim of this problem. Somebody must have worked his brain and other people’s brains enough with this scientific bullshit that they actually fell for it. He’s probably a real truther doing it in all honesty. And if he’s not, he’s doing a really bad job.”

    OUCH…

  4. Please send these two latest on Chandler and A&E to me as word docs so they will fit properly into my blog. And consider publishing these two of mine (Dennis Cimino and me, actually) as a response to the absurdity:

    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-aeronautical-engineer-no-boeing-757.html

    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2015/09/reflections-on-pentagon-911.html

    In either order. But this kind of subversion of the 9/11 Truth movement must end.

        1. HR,
          Because it was an entirely gratuitous shot at Fetzer for no reason. We know where you stand on Fetzer. If he says something you want to take issue with, by all means do.

          1. “But this kind of subversion of the 9/11 Truth movement must end.”

            That is specifically what I take issue with Craig. It is hypocritical coming from Jim Fetzer.
            \\][//

            1. Yes, but that means any time he writes anything you can just saying it’s hypocritical. We get it. I’d prefer it if you stuck to reacting (if you must) to the specifics of what he writes.

                1. It’s mostly futile … takes energy and time to …
                  –mud wrestle with a pig.
                  –argue with a devil.
                  –take a swing at a tar baby.

                  Having said these things, I’ll admit to succumbing to the temptations even now.

                  Where would we be in numbers of newbies if we spent our energies ‘evangelizing’ about 9-11 in sectors where there is hypnotic ignorance?

                  1. “Where would we be in numbers of newbies if we spent our energies ‘evangelizing’ about 9-11 in sectors where there is hypnotic ignorance?”~rediscover911com

                    Right where “we” are now__there is hypnotic ignorance in ALL sectors. Hypnotic ignorance is pandemic.
                    \\][//

  5. Wowza… What a fantastic bait and switch…. Chandler, who was one of the most respected researchers of 9/11 is now on the plane-hit-pentagon side, and Mr. Fetzer, who does not have much credibility in this neck of the woods is now on the same side as McKee, Syed, Ruff and HR1, and is seeking collaboration on the matter!!!!

    Ha, f’n ha! You can’t make this stuff up if you wanted to.

    1. “Ha, f’n ha! You can’t make this stuff up if you wanted to.”~Lilaleo

      It is totally Kafkaesque isn’t it David … 21st century schizoid world!!
      \\][//

      1. I am still not comfortable going quite that far. I understand the whole concept of building “credibility capital” by first doing something good to win over the trust of 9/11 activists, but Chandler did way too much good work. Even if NIST hadn’t admitted freefall, his videos meticulously speak for themselves. I don’t think the perps would have one of their agents document so succinctly how the WTC came down since that demolition itself destroys the official story. I think something happened later with Chandler, and it didn’t necessarily involve being threatened or paid off.

        1. “I think something happened later with Chandler, and it didn’t necessarily involve being threatened or paid off.”~Adam Syed

          “Bad Company & I can’t deny, bad bad company…” er, song by…you guessed it!

          Frank “Daddy Long Legs” Legge, the grandpappy of pap, super mole extrēmus. Mustelid Maximus. Old timey agent provocateur.

          \\][//

        2. As I Recall:

          I think one needs a long memory to put together how this whole Pentagon divide came about.
          It began with what some felt was a real concern of what they termed a “Honey Trap”; in our context, a technique to get a large group committed to a proposition that could later be devastated by the release of clear and conclusive evidence in the form of clear and distinct videos of a plane hitting the Pentagon. It seems that Jim Hoffman was seduced into this idea by a real honey trap set by Victoria Ashley the Siren of 9/11 disinformation, a harpy of unfounded paranoia over a highly unlikely scenario.

          This idea caught on and was spread by other moles digging in the earthworks that the foundation of the budding Truth Movement was being laid. But it was spread underground and not articulated openly, while the sheep dipping process was going on.

          Hoffman had done some of the great early work in destroying the NIST reports, thus becoming a target for a deep cover mission of disinformation. Thus the attachment to him of Mata Hari Ashley. This was also around the time the Steven Jones was first stirring in his awakening to the anomalies of the WTC event. When his first paper was written it was discovered by another of the waiting moles all clean-wrapped in sheep-dip, Jim Fetzer, who contacted Jones with the proposition to put together an organization of scholars to study 9/11. Of course Kevin Ryan was outspoken about Underwriters Labs covering up early involvement in certification of steel assemblies for the WTC, and he became involved with this core group of ‘scholars’

          At this point it seems no mention was circulating of confronting the Pentagon situation, as WTC was the main focal point of all concerned. There seems only to have been Hoffman’s warning of the “Honey Trap” possibility/likelihood. Frank Legge was an early volunteer to this new scholars group, offering many papers on the WTC events, and his legitimacy seemed viable. He was mum openly about anything Pentagon in this early period as well.

          A major blowout in this set up that had become “Scholars for 9/11 Truth” was the proposition by Judy Wood, of an exotic beam weapon being responsible for the destruction of the WTC. She seems to have been promoted by Morgan Reynolds and ushered into the group on his suggestion.

          It seems that Jones and others were appalled by this DEW proposition, while Fetzer embraced it, insisting that the group must be “open minded”. At the time that Jones began protesting the Wood hypothesis, Reynolds initiated an attack on Jones using Judy Wood as a coauthor on a slanderous published paper against Steven Jones.

          >Now to digress here a bit; it is my opinion that Judy Wood didn’t originate much of any of the DEW proposition I think she is mentally handicapped and barely capable of remembering her lines in interviews. She seems to be handled by one, Andrew Johnson, who is the likely author of most of her written work.

          So, without recalling exact dates for any of this, we come to the point where Jones and Fetzer have a blowup and Jones splits off and begins Journal of 9/11 Studies. Most of the genuine scientists join him in the split. Fetzer is left with “the loonies” as I would put it. He goes on to promote the “Dew” idea, then the “No-Planes” concept, the “Video Fakery” concept, the “Hologram Planes” idea, and then the “Nukes at WTC” concept. In my opinion, all being pseudoscience drivel, and willful disinformation.

          Jones seems to have been very effected by all of the intrigue and backstabbing that had gone on, and was attempting to simply see his project through of investigating why and how the towers did indeed collapse. And of course his keen eye for detail caught the visuals of the molten metal pouring from the first tower to “collapse” just prior to the initiation of such.
          When Jones found fruition in his thermate hypothesis in the paper published on that subject, I think he felt his contributions were sufficient, and he wanted to return to his attempts to prove cold fusion. This is the point he decided to retire from active engagement at Journal, and he handed the reigns off to Kevin Ryan, who chose Frank Legge as his assistant in managing the online site. This is the proximate moment of the sudden move to spring on the Pentagon issue perpetrated by Legge. Just as Jones is leaving, Legge is preparing his first drafts promoting the “likelihood of a large aircraft hitting the Pentagon”; a literal coup d’etat at Journal.

          Fast Forward to today, and this is the mess we have inherited, largely due to the machinations of Legge, and his influence on the others, with certain input by shadowing individuals on the side; the Hoffman, Arabesque, Ashley click – Wyndham teaming up with Legge, and other intrigues that we can only guess at.
          How Cole and Chandler were influenced and brought into this operation is still mysterious to me. But there they are. And here we are…all looking at one another thinking WTF?
          \\][//

          1. Very well summed up. I’ve been in this since 2005 and your chronology of the events and associations is right on.

            Right around that 5th anniversary, when Loose Change made the missile theory very popular, Alex Jones was another person of large influence who advanced the honeypot scenario with the Pentagon, using the exact same reasoning, that if the movement would become too united on no plane hitting the Pentagon, the government would release clear footage of a plane crash and would be so discrediting to the movement. So curiously, you have crazy conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Responsible Truther ® Victoria Ashley joined at the hip like Siamese twins on this one issue!

            1. Thank you Adam, I wrote that off the top of my head, but I have a good memory for the general outline of things. That’s why I wasn’t date specific in my remarks.
              \\][//

              1. Listen, at the moment I am interested in science aspect. I want to evaluate the merit of scientific paper of Harrit et al. and report prepared by Millette. I was aware of them few years ago but it was few days ago when I appeared here that I got stimulated to read them thoroughly for the first time and started studying them very carefully. These two works present results of actual tests and experiments performed on physical evidence. Their works are not perfect but that is the best we have. Until more tests and experiments are performed we will not know more than what is in these two papers. I want to reach conclusion that I feel comfortable with on the basis of these papers. And I am close to it. Actually more or less it is in my last comment to Jens Schmidt but I must to organize and refine it.

                You just gave me a link to Jones’s letter to Fetzer. I’m really disappointed in Jones that he engaged in any interchanges with Fetzer. Fetzer does not deserve any time from anybody who has an ounce of self-respect. He is an ignorant buffoon. This letter has nothing in it that interests me. Do you find it interesting? What is really in it that got you interested? Is there anything about meaning of the DSC test or iron rich spheres? Don’t answer. I know enough about you already.

                1. “You just gave me a link to Jones’s letter to Fetzer.”~utu

                  I didn’t address that comment to you asshole. I know enough about you already as well.
                  \\][//

            1. dissociation constant,
              No I say that planes flew into the WTC towers. I say no plane hit the Pentagon.
              Haven’t you read any of the comments here?
              \\][//

  6. Victoria Ashley and Jim Hoffman have been spewing various disinfo since the old 911blogger days(before the site purged everyone who thought a Boeing didn’t hit the Pentagon and everyone who thinks Israel was involved in 9/11). I’m not surprised to see those 2 limited hangout artists involved in this smearing of those who reject the Flight 77 into the Pentagon scenario we’ve been fed.

        1. Yes. First was the 2008 purge of anyone and everyone known to have an account at wtcd. That was also when they kicked off Kevin Barrett the day he announced he was running for Congress. Then there was the 2010 purge of everyone who supported CIT and Pilots, which is when they finally booted me off. I understand there was another purge after that, when Erik Larson put out his convoluted attack piece against DRG’s phone call fakery research. That attack on DRG’s research and also motives came at a point when he was ill and near death, unable to respond in a timely fashion. Apparently a bunch of people found their comments put into endless moderation and never published after they staunchly defended Griffin’s work.

  7. I tend to agree with General Stubblebine “I don’t know what hit the Pentagon but it wasn’t a plane.”

    Disinformation abounds; stuff just as serious is given resolute attention by professionally produced information operations in what I call ‘alternative mainstream media’

    http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2015/10/16/zero-hedge-takes-the-kool-aid/

    ^ What could be interesting is called ‘following the money’ … attention to that detail might be very revealing –

    1. It’s pretty pathetic to see someone like General Stubblebine being taken in by distorted misrepresentations of the facts and then presented it as if he had some expert opinion of viewpoint.

      1. I’ve seen a couple of Stubblebine’s presentations. They hardly align with your ‘pretty pathetic’ statement. What I’ve seen of his statements is, he makes a case for the fact a plane did not hit the Pentagon and is careful not to make a determination he knows what did happen, simply good, conservative position taken by an old intelligence hand. Works for me.

        1. Here is what General Stubblebine said.
          “We always, always, rely not on one piece of data before we make a statement but on multiple (pieces) and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate the better you know exactly what is going on. So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs ..”
          ” I don’t know what hit the Pentagon but from the photographs I have analysed and looked at very very carefully , it was not an airplane”
          In fact he said he saw a photograph, a photograph showing the hole in the Pentagon, and he measured it and studied it etc. conclusion: an airplane did not make that hole. So much for always relying on multiple pieces of data. For instance scores of eyewitnesses who said it was an airplane. Or bodies of passengers identified in the aftermath. Just one photograph.
          And then he has a clear close-up photo of a part of an aircraft engine. You would think that someone who was in charge of the armies strategic intelligence , examining satellite and reconnaissance photos taken from miles away you would think it would be a simple task to identify a particular aircraft engine from a close-up photograph. He says it looks like a turbine from a missile. He can’t identify a part of a high-bypass turbine from a close-up photograph. he misidentifies it as from a missile.

          1. Yeah, and so according to your version of events, the plane folded it’s wings tight and close to its body, tucked the engines neatly into its fuselage and made a single impact entry that would deposit THE engine (one missing) inside the Pentagon and not leave the wings the engines were attached to sheared off and outside the building.. I don’t think so. General Stubblebine wasn’t chief of Army intelligence because he’s stupid. That’s all I have to say on the matter.

            1. @Ronald Thomas West According to the people who were there a large airliner crashed into the Pentagon. That’s not my version of events, it’s theirs. According to the people identifying the bodies they identified the bodies of the passengers who were on AA77. According to no one that I have ever seen anywhere in 14 years, there was only one engine recovered from the Pentagon so that is no ones version of events -I don’t know where that comes from. There was a 90 ft wide hole in the Pentagon and the wings undoubtedly were mangled and shredded as they blasted through the reinforced walls of the Pentagon. General Stubblebine is a pretty elderly man and has an excuse for not being as bright as he might have been in the past.

        2. Ronald Thomas West,
          It is futile to attempt an argument of substance with Agent Wright. He will take things out of context, bend the meanings of words, and generally spin rhetorical bullshit until he turns the world upsidedown, light to dark, color to black and white, and shit to gold.
          He is a common stooge and nothing more.
          \\][//

      2. “It’s pretty pathetic to see someone like General Stubblebine being taken in by distorted misrepresentations of the facts and then presented it as if he had some expert opinion of viewpoint.”

        A. Wright, this kind of comment really is useless. If you don’t have anything specific to say, it would be better of you didn’t bother.

      3. I feel General Stubblebine is at a disadvantage here, in that he probably hasn’t been exposed to the connection between the Sandia F-4 Phantom sled tests, and the discipline that grew out of that test of analyzing high-speed air-vehicle crashes into extremely hardened walls.

        1. “he (Stubblebine) probably hasn’t been exposed to the connection between the Sandia F-4 Phantom sled tests”~Deets

          Why would you assume this Dwain? I see no basis for such conjecture.
          \\][//

        2. Dwain I find your dismissal of all the north of Citgo testimonies to be dubious at best. I can think of no reasonable excuse for you, or Chandler for that matter, to have dismissed them. I can only conclude that you are being dishonest by doing so without good cause.

  8. I think the fact that trolls are tripping all over themselves to post their garbage here is a very positive sign. The more of them that show up and the harder they try the more damage I know these recent articles are doing to the perps. It seems to me that when there is a really hard hitting piece done here, or elsewhere for that matter, that the trolls just gurgle forth from their caves in mass and try every trick in the book to ruin the discourse or to distract from the point. The more the trolls get worked up into a lather the more I know we are having an effect on them, the more I know the noose is tightening around their necks. Great article Craig. I think I am going to buy a copy of Massimo’s film today! The unedited version of course, not the Jenkins cut.

  9. “They are viewed as being credible and respectable by some because of their excellent work on the World Trade Center destruction, and they are cashing that in to challenge anyone who takes the position that a plane did not hit the Pentagon.”

    Because they are so clearly lying about the Pentagon, I wonder if they are lying about controlled demolition and nanothermite too. Once you know someone is lying to you, how can you trust anything they say?

    1. They’re not lying about controlled demolition for sure, and I still haven’t seen a convincing rebuttal to nanothermite, the paper about which at the WTC was written mainly by Harritt and Jones. I could see it was controlled demolition long before any of us had heard of Chandler, Ryan and Legge.

      I’m convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that Legge is a mole. Some of the others might just be under his “scholarly spell.” You know, the academic Ph.D. who wears the jacket and tie and speaks softly.

      1. I don’t mean to imply that if controlled demolition is false, that planes took down the towers. Only that perhaps their own particular BRAND of controlled demolition is false, ie, nanothermite.

        IIRC, Fetzer believes it was mini-nukes, and I see some evidence for this. Judy Wood believes it was directed energy; she also makes some points that nanothermite can’t explain.

        It’s hard for me to see how people can put so much stock in the prior work of those now known to be egregiously off course. (Meaning Legge, Chandler, Jenkins, et al.)

        1. “Fetzer believes it was mini-nukes, and I see some evidence for this.”~Sheila

          Wow! Really Sheila? Fascinating!

          I don’t know if this is the particular venue to address this in, but I would really like to know what you could possibly think is reasonable evidence for this. Don’t breach it yet, wait for Mr Mckee’s advice. I am just expressing my astonishment and curiosity at this point.
          \\][//

        2. I think Jones and Harritt (mostly Jones) was the real brain trust on nano-thermite hypothesis and I think the rest really were just hangers-on and didn’t contribute very much. Just my opinion.

          1. RuffAdam,

            I agree;
            I think that the nanothermate paper was principally both Jones and Harrit. The other signatories are likely just for clerical duties, and some textual reviews for formatting purposes.
            \\][//

        3. Sheila,

          Again, it’s evidence not the messenger that should determine whether it is false. It’s not a question of putting stock in anyone. Niels Harrit has made it very clear that he does not think nanothermite was entirely or even primarily responsible for bringing down the towers. He says it was a small part of it, and he admits he doesn’t know what type of explosive did most of the work. There is, in my judgment, no benefit to be had from fighting over what type of explosive force was used. We know something was and that this proves it was not a Muslim terrorist attack.

          1. Exactly! We do not know how the towers were demolished. Every researcher should keep repeating at least once in every paragraph of his/her utterance: “I do not know.” We would avoid a lot of conflicts in the movement. Korzybski’s advice to avoid verb “is” and replacing it with “it seems” or “I think it’s” would be useful too.

      2. “Some of the others might just be under his [Legge’s] “scholarly spell.” You know, the academic Ph.D. who wears the jacket and tie and speaks softly.”
        I have no opinion of Legge, as I don’t remember having read anything by him, other than the Harrit et al paper, to which his contribution probably was minor.

        But: If memory serves, he has his PhD in chemistry, with a background in agriculture. Can any of you verify that? Does he have any scholarly achievements to his credit other than his papers at the Journal of 9/11 Studies? The Harrit paper lists his affiliation as “Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia” – a business, apparently, not an academic venue.

        With that in mind, I don’t see how physicist Chandler, engineer Cole or physics PhD Wyndham should feel under any “scholarly spell” – Legge is simply outside his field here at the Pentagon.
        Do you assert that perhaps Dr. SE Jones (physics), Dr. NH Harrit (chemistry), Dr. J Farrer (physics), Dr. GS Jenkins (physics), Dr. C Grabbe (physics), or Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer) were likewise under that “scholarly spell” when they collaborated with Legge on various papers?

        1. “Do you assert that perhaps Dr. SE Jones (physics), Dr. NH Harrit (chemistry), Dr. J Farrer (physics), Dr. GS Jenkins (physics), Dr. C Grabbe (physics), or Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer) were likewise under that “scholarly spell” when they collaborated with Legge on various papers?”~Jens Schmidt

          Of course not Schmidt. Keep up here. Legge didn’t start spewing his Pentagon garbage until after Jones retired from the Journal, leaving Kevin Ryan as editor and chief, with Legge as assistant editor. That is when he produced his first hit piece against those who realize that there was no airplane crash at the Pentagon.

          Don’t assume your own “scholarly spell” is going to have any effect here.
          \\][//

          1. Relax, HR1, I asked a question (with no assumption implied),and accept your answer.🙂

            Since you did not address my characterization of Legge’s scholarly profile as insignificant nor my doubt that Chandler, Cole and Wyndham would have no cause to be influenced by Legge’s “scholarly spell”, I do assume that you accept those musings as legitimate.

            1. “Since you did not address my characterization of Legge’s scholarly profile as insignificant nor my doubt that Chandler, Cole and Wyndham would have no cause to be influenced by Legge’s “scholarly spell”, I do assume that you accept those musings as legitimate.”~Jens Schmidt

              You ask if I take YOUR musings as legitimate, that “handler, Cole and Wyndham would have no cause to be influenced by Legge’s “scholarly spell”.

              No I do not. Legge is the oldest of these people, and often that translated to “wiser” for younger men. I do know Legge quite well although not having met him in person we communicated for several months in an intensive email discussion and eventual heated debate. Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.
              He is a persuasive liar and a cheat as well.

              So whether this “scholarly spell” was all from respect for his tenure and achievements or had some great measure of intimidation is only known by the details of each of this cast of characters actual interactions with this shyster. Going along to get along is a pretty deeply ingrained human psychological response to perceived authority.

              That is No, as a long answer Mr Schmidt, and it is adamant on my part as well.
              \\][//

              1. No I do not. Legge is the oldest of these people, and often that translated to “wiser” for younger men.
                Seriously? Cole graduated in 1979 and thus has 35 or so of engineering experience on his back. Chandler is no “younger man”. I don’t know how old Wyndham is, but he was Assistant Professor for three years before going on a career in IT education. I can’t take this serious.

                I do know Legge quite well although not having met him in person we communicated for several months in an intensive email discussion and eventual heated debate. Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.
                He is a persuasive liar and a cheat as well.

                I can’t argue with your personal experience, and accept it as you put it. However, I am aware that the quality of personal communications is a function of both sides’ behaviour. I am sure your personal experience with me differs VASTLY from the experience of those I collaborate with on a friendly. co-operative basis.

                So whether this “scholarly spell” was all from respect for his tenure and achievements or had some great measure of intimidation is only known by the details of each of this cast of characters actual interactions with this shyster. Going along to get along is a pretty deeply ingrained human psychological response to perceived authority.
                In other words: You are speculating, perhaps projecting.

                That is No, as a long answer Mr Schmidt, and it is adamant on my part as well.”
                “Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.”😀

                1. Legge is in his 80’s, Chandler is in his 70’s now, Cole is quite a bit younger still. I have no idea of the age of Wyndham, but I consider him to be a close associate of Legge’s and mole himself.

                  That you “can’t take this serious.” is absolutely of no concern to me.

                  You say, ““Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.”

                  Which is quite a distinction between; “Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.”

                  The “with” as opposed to “against” is of the essence. Is it not Mr Schmidt.
                  \\][//

                  1. Legge is in his 80’s, Chandler is in his 70’s now, Cole is quite a bit younger still.
                    80s – wow, ok, would not have guessed that.
                    Cole would be going on 60.

                    That you “can’t take this serious.” is absolutely of no concern to me.
                    That’s your prerogative.

                    You say, ““Hybridrogue1 is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works against.”

                    Which is quite a distinction between; “Legge is pushy, authoritarian, and adamant not to be crossed by those he works with.”

                    The “with” as opposed to “against” is of the essence. Is it not Mr Schmidt.
                    D’uh. Yes, of course, I wouldn’t have changed the “with” to “against” of it didn’t make a difference. Did you notice the “:D”? That was essential, too, to correctly parse my text.

                    1. “Did you notice the “:D”? “~Schmidt

                      Yes, such use of little cartoon faces annoys me, it reminds me of little children’s notes to one another.

                      Do you want a friend on this forum Mr Schmidt? Look to some of the others here.
                      \\][//

              2. Willy said:

                “You ask if I take YOUR musings as legitimate, that “handler, Cole and Wyndham would have no cause to be influenced by Legge’s “scholarly spell”.”

                “handler”…..was that a typo or a Freudian slip?🙂

            2. Schmidt, you say, “Relax, HR1”, as though I am emotionally tense in these exchanges with you. I am not. I have very little knee-jerk emotional responses left in my personality makeup. But I will tell you now, one thing I never relax is my intellectual and critical mind. I am alert to all the signs of intellectual manipulations and suggestion. This is why I picked up on your ‘advice’ to relax. In hypnosis this is known as “suggestion” as you likely know very well. In debate and human interaction in general such “suggestion” can be non-hypnotic and yet still be interpreted as a subtle attempt at suggestive manipulation – in legal terms, “leading the witness”.
              I hope “we” are beginning to understand one-another Mr Schmidt.
              \\][//

    2. Sheila,

      I think it would be a mistake to draw conclusions about controlled demolition because of what this group is doing on the Pentagon. To express doubts about controlled demolition because of them would be a terrible mistake, I think. We need to focus on the evidence, not the messenger.

    3. Sheila,

      Legge and crew simply used the CD argument to build up credibility capitol since the truth movement had already proved that the towers were demolished. This way the agent(s) lose nothing by admitting to or even appearing to support CD. Later on they trade in their free credibility capitol so they can do more damage to the truth movement on issues that are more dangerous to the perps, like the pentagon for example. Chandler and some of the others may just be dupes fooled by Legge’s flim flam or they may be operatives too. We will never know for sure without a whistle blower coming forward. I do know one thing though, one or more of these people are working for the other side and they are doing everything in their power to suppress the pentagon evidence. The good news is their mission is a failure and they are completely and utterly discredited.

  10. The fact that this group represents “some of the same scientists and engineers” that established controlled demolition as the movement’s dominant position makes their efforts that much more troubling. How can people like Chandler, Jenkins, Cole, and Ryan do such positive things for the cause of truth in other areas and then devote almost all their time spent on the Pentagon to opposing those who oppose the official story?

    This is much more of a mystery than what actually happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

    I don’t think it is too much of a mystery, actually.

    I know that many of us have speculated why some people push WTC CD but also push plane impact. We have theorized that the Pentagon evidence is even more damning than the WTC evidence because the list of culprits is more narrow, namely top military brass like Rumsfeld.

    But I think there’s another, very simple reason, and DRG delineated it perfectly in his Cognitive Infiltration book.

    Quite simply, the perps want there to be no 9/11 truth movement. They want it extinguished.

    It’s common knowledge that a movement divided is a movement defeated.

    If they can succeed at getting people within local groups to get fighting, and have falling-outs, over the Pentagon, it could lead to broken friendships and alliances, and in the worst case scenario, the disbanding of entire truth groups.

    The whole purpose of cognitive infiltration is to attempt to end the existence of the 9/11 truth movement.

    1. This comment above of mine, by the way, is not meant to imply that every member of the Team is a cognitive infiltrator. I agree with Mazzucco that some of them have had their brains played with, by a sort of hypnosis whereby they hear “scientific method” enough and start to believe it. But I will reiterate again that Legge is definitely a mole. Just no doubt about it, based on the sheer scale of his disingenuity (disingenuousness?).

      1. Mr Syed,

        “disingenuity” – “disingenuousness”; either one is proper, and fit Legge like a custom made straight-jacket. No doubting he is mustelidae.

        I also think that Sheila wondering about explosive demolition as being part of some sort of disinformation is simply bizarre. It is simply proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
        \\][//

        1. Shelia is questioning the nanotermite only theory. Asking if nanothermite was responsible for cutting steel columns (quite possible) and ejecting those columns 600 feet from the building’s footprint is not bizarre.

          1. Art, Your construction is not so clear here. Are you saying that Sheila’s questioning “is not bizarre,” or that, “ejecting those columns 600 feet from the building’s footprint is not bizarre;” when it comes to the use of Nanothermate?

            Please disambiguate.
            \\][//

              1. Thanks for clearing that up Art.

                So what do YOU think helped that little old weak Nanothermate, with blowing up the towers?

                Do you have any concept of the brisance of the sol-gel energetics? See:

                “Summary Energetics • Protein cages offer the ability to encapsulate and stabilize reactive components, interact with nAl, and quickly deliver components to the surface. • Ferritin used in a single or multi-layer structure leads to greater energy release and enhanced kinetics. • Reactivity can be controlled by dialing in the number of protein layers added on nAl or by changing the protein contents. • Each protein layers can be customized with inorganic materials, oxidizing agents, and/or explosive materials on demand. 1-Layer AP 1-Layer FeO(OH) Multi-layer FeO(OH) Reactivity Distribution A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
                [nAl — Molar mass of NAl is 40.98824 ± 0.00020 g/mol. N = Nitrogen, Atomic weight – 14.0067; 1 Atom: Mass percent –34.1725 %
                Al = Aluminum, Atomic weight -26.9815386; 1 Atom: Mass percent — 65.8275 %]”

                See also:
                At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or “frozen smoke” (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh.
                These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, “In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures’ are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite’ materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods.”

                https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

                Also read the Jones-Harrit paper itself.
                \\][//

                1. Neither Jones nor Harrit have any experimental knowledge of the substances they discuss. The question above (Sheila?) was about explosive properties: can they cut WC central columns? can they toss columns? can they powderize concrete? To acquire this kind of knowledge you do experiments with the material at military range. It’s possible that physicists and chemists who design these materials do not know the results of the military tests. Jones and Harrit only saw specks of the alleged material in minuscule samples. They do not know and you Mr. Rogue do not know either.

                  1. utu said:

                    “It’s possible that physicists and chemists who design these materials do not know the results of the military tests”

                    They have to know the EXACT results of the tests; otherwise they would just be taking shots in the dark, not knowing whether they are improving or worsening the substance the are trying to create.

                    1. Yes and now. Just like metallurgist who designed a new alloy will do standard test to determine all possible parameters (tensile strength,…) but won’t be involved in applications like making a particular parts, they may not know much about various shaped charges that other researches and engineers develop.

                  2. utu said:

                    “they may not know much about various shaped charges that other researches and engineers develop”

                    That’s nonsense!

                    They ALL have to work together or it would just be guess work.

                    You can keep twisting in into different words, but ALL of the scientists have to work together as a unit to develop explosives, bombs, cleaning agents, lubricants and every other substance that has to perform in a certain way.

                    This is as elementary as it gets, utu.

                    1. Physicist and chemists who invent the material; technologists who develop methods to produce it in sufficient quantities with repeatable properties; researchers/engineers who build and test charges. I’m sure that they communicate with each other but it might be on need to know basis only. Keep in mind that Jones and Harrit only identified traces of the material. They do not know how to make it, what is technology and what kind of booms it can do.

                  3. “Neither Jones nor Harrit have any experimental knowledge of the substances they discuss. ~Utu

                    Interesting assertion. Jones and Harrit would have hands on experimental knowledge of the substance they investigated. As you see from the comparative graphs in the charts, they had access to charts of various known sol-gels that they compared against their own material.

                    At the point when your own measurements are made, the comparison of other substances known can be made, which can lead to reasonable assumptions as to the possibilities of various mixes of gas producing molecules in ratio to the inflammatory substance.

                    How much science do you understand here. You did read the Jones-Harrit paper didn’t you?
                    You should have noticed the comparative charts between the Tillotson Xerogell and the chips being tested by Harrit. The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.

                    Now you mention; “The question above (Sheila?) was about explosive properties: can they cut WC central columns? can they toss columns? can they powderize concrete?”

                    Anyone who has seen Jonathan Cole’s experiments with simple Termate (sulfur laced thermite) knows that even this regular Thermate can do every one of those things. To then consider the possibilities of sol-gels with exponentially more explosive force than regular Thermate; it seems those questions are answered in Aces.
                    \\][//

                    1. You should have noticed the comparative charts between the Tillotson Xerogell and the chips being tested by Harrit. The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.

                      The W/g are “specific power”, not “brisance”. Tittlotson’s paper points out specifically that they did NOT yet measure the reaction velocity!

                      5 W/g are nothing extraordinary. Here is a paper that investigates the “…Thermo-oxidative Degradation of a composite Epoxy Resin Material” – nothing designed to be energetic or explosive, nothing nano, just regular epoxy resin:
                      Budrugeac (2013)
                      Look at the upper right chart in Figure 1: The DSC chart peaks near 5 W/g!

                      Is 5 W/g a very fast reaction?
                      Truth is: No, not at all, it is a very slow reaction.
                      From this curve, Harrit determined a specific energy of 1.5 kJ/g for the entire chip (including the gray layer, which they assumed to be inert). By definition, 1 W = 1 J/s. Or 1 s = 1 J/W – reaction time is energy divided by (average) power: t = E/P. Let’s plug in the numbers (mass, measured in g, cancels out): reaction time for that chip would have been 1500 kJ / 5 W = 300 seconds, assuming konstant power. That’s 5 minutes. Read: IF the chip burned constantly at its peak specific power of 5 W/g, it would take 5 minutes to burn to completion! For a red layer merely 50 micrometers thin and about 1 mm wide, that is VERY slow burning indeed! Now you need to realize that this slow burning is immediately obvious from the DSC graphs anyway: The x-axis plots target temperature. Temperature was raised at a rate of 10 °C/min. 10 °C on the x-axis are thus equivalent to 60 s. The blue curve (the one they compare with Tillotson) starts reacting exothermally at ~240 °C and ends reacting exothermally at ~480 °C. The difference, 240 °C took 24 minutes in the DSC device – that’s how slowly the chip reacted in reality!

                      Harrit’s DSC comparison between one chip vs. Tillotson’s nanothermite (Fig. 29) is odd anyway: Look at Fig. 19: They picked the curve that most closely resembled Tillotson’s – with the lowest peak power and highest peak temperature. The green curve peaks well above 20 W/g! That is also the curve from which Harrit determined a specific energy of 7.5 kJ/g – 5 times that of known nanothermite, and almost twice that which thermite could do in theory. This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the MAIN reaction that produced the plotted DSC peak was NOT, could not possibly be, a thermite reaction.

                      Anyway, at no point do Harrit et al even hint that the chips react “explosive” in any way under their own power! I don’t think it counts if you infuse lots of heat by pointing a torch flame at a chip.

                      As far as I know, the only person hinting such is Mark Basile; he filmed a chip he heated on a steel strip, and then in one frame it was still there, in the next gone.
                      Assuming a frame rate of 30/s, and a field of viision that shows no more than an inch or so, this gives a minimum velocity of the chip of 0.03 meters per 1/30th of a second – we are talking about an order of magnitude of 1 m/s. “Extraordinary brisance” of an explosive would be far beyond 1000 m/s.

                      SUMMARY:
                      Harrit’s chips burn very slowly in the DSC test.
                      Their brisance is unknown, experimental results indicate it may be 3 orders of magnitude lower than the brisance of ordinary explosives.

                    2. “I don’t think it counts if you infuse lots of heat by pointing a torch flame at a chip.”~Jens Schmidt

                      But of course, you derived this assumption from the photo of Jones. As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.
                      As far as the rest of your post; this simply does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. They speak of massive overpressure and brisance, and the ability to dial in such attributes according to the gas producing molecules in ratio to the energetic product.
                      Again, if Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate, it is imminently plausible to presume nano-milled sol-gels would be exponentially more explosive.
                      \\][//

                    3. …you derived this assumption from the photo of Jones. As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.
                      No. I think you want to re-read the relevant part of Harrit et al and then come back and correct your mistake.

                      As far as the rest of your post; this simply does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. They speak of massive overpressure and brisance, and the ability to dial in such attributes according to the gas producing molecules in ratio to the energetic product.
                      I agree it does not jibe with the what is described in the literature concerning the explosive properties of sol-gel energetics. The conclusion from Harrit’s experimental results should then be that the chips are probably NOT “sol-gel energetics”.
                      Is there any evidence in Harrit et al that the red material is the result of a sol-gel process? No. Have Harrit et al identified the red material? Not really! They don’t know what the organic matrix material is, they have no idea what the silicon is doing there, and they haven’t really understood what these platelet-shaped particles are. They have no explanation for the gray material.
                      Most of the energy release comes from the organic matrix as it burns on air. Again, the power is comparable to that of ordinary epoxy resin, as per the Budrugeac paper I linked you to. There really is no good evidence that any thermite reaction has occurred at all.

                      Again, if Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate,
                      IF – but did he really? Did he powderize concrete? Did he toss steel columns?

                      it is imminently plausible to presume nano-milled sol-gels would be exponentially more explosive.
                      That would be a presumption, which does not follow in any way from the experimental data on the red/gray chips as presented by Harrit et al. Quite the contrary. The thermal behaviour of the chips is dominated by mere organic combustion on air.

                    4. In paper I read they measured 4 samples with calorimeter and obtained between 1 and 7 kJ/g. The speed of reaction can be an issue with mixtures (even nano mixtures) as comparing to more traditional chemical explosives (one chemical compound). For this reason, let call it Sheila’s concern, we do not know how good this nano thermite will be as a shaped charge explosive as opposed to Semtex or RDX. Jones and Harris did excellent investigative forensic research but I will insist that they know very little about how to make these material and how to apply them and what these materials can really do.

                      How meaningful are DSC traces and what do they tell us? Frankly, I need to beef up my knowledge on this to understand what, say 10 W/g does mean? Though I found this article:
                      http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol2_n1/JATMv2n1_p53-58_Studies_on_compatibility_of_energetic_materials_by_thermal_methods.pdf
                      https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/7501/1/thesis%20document.pdf

                      where DSC testing of RDX is performed. But to what purpose?

                    5. …explosive properties: can they cut WC central columns? can they toss columns? can they powderize concrete? Anyone who has seen Jonathan Cole’s experiments with simple Termate (sulfur laced thermite) knows that even this regular Thermate can do every one of those things.
                      To the best of my knowledge:
                      Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate powderizes concrete.
                      Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate tosses columns.

                      The steel wall panels found at the WFC, on the other side of West Street, are said to have been ejected at a lateral velocity of 60 mph, 75 mph … I have seen different estimated by different Truth researchers, but that is about the range.
                      Each wall panel weighs several tons.
                      It is easy, in principal, to calculate the amount of high explosives needed to accelerate a ton of steel from 0 to 60 mph. As for formulas, all you need is the formulas for energy (kinetic energy of the tossed mass, chemical energy of the explosive) and momentum (of both the panel and the explosive residues flying the other direction), and estimate reasonable bounds for brisance and energy density. Has anyone attempted to do that? I think the result would leave you scratching your head.

                    6. “Cole didn’t show that (or how) thermate tosses columns.”~Jens Schmidt

                      He most certainly did. He showed a video of the thermate blowing the top off of a capped column that blew it up high as a pine tree in his back yard.

                      \\][//

                    7. He most certainly did. He showed a video of the thermate blowing the top off of a capped column that blew it up high as a pine tree in his back yard.
                      Thanks for confirming that he didn’t toss a column.
                      What flew up in the tree? Watch the Cole-video from 12:50 minutes on: He made a four-sided box cutter – something he can hold in his hand without a lot of force. Then boom, then: “I think my box cutter blew about 30 feet up“. Not the top of a capped column. Be more careful with your claims, HR1!

                      In his experiments, Cole typically used like 1 kg of thermate. I think the box cutter isn’t more than 5 kg. To fly up 10 meters, an object needs an initial velocity of about 14 m/s, that’s about 30 mph. Half of what is claimed for the wall panels. To accelerate the box cutter to twice the velocity, you need four times the energy. So for perhaps 5 kg of box cutter, he’d have needed more like 4 kg of thermate.

                      Wall panels weighed several tons.
                      To toss wall panels to a velocity of 60 mph, you need tons of thermate.
                      This is a result of Cole’s experiment.
                      It should have you scratching yout head: How would the perps place tons of thermate onto or into each wall panel?

                    8. “How would the perps place tons of thermate onto or into each wall panel?” ~Schmidt

                      They wouldn’t, the product in the dust samples was not the regular Thermate Cole was using. I am getting tired of these circular arguments – you KNOW damned well we aren’t talking about Thermate, nor Thermite here.
                      \\][//

                    9. you KNOW damned well we aren’t talking about Thermate, nor Thermite here
                      I never claimed we are talking about therm_te here. I was talking about the experimental results on certain red-gray chips.
                      It was YOU who introduced the talk on thermate when you linked to the Cole video. If you don’t want to talk about thermate, don’t introduce the topic! Don’t blame me for responding to you!

                    10. “Don’t blame me for responding to you!”~Schmidt
                      Then don’t be surprized that I won’t be responding to you further. If you can’t figure out why I brought up the Cole videos then screw you.
                      \\][//

                    11. Then don’t be surprized that I won’t be responding to you further. If you can’t figure out why I brought up the Cole videos then screw you.
                      I am not surprised. I pointed out several hard errors in your claims about the Harrit study. I can understand why you might be shy to respond to that.

                      To remind you: The original cause for me to respond in this thread half a day ago was your assertion that “5 Watts/Gram” means “at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.”“. This was flat-out FALSE. I explained to you that brisance is not measured in W/g (rather, it correlated with velocity of the reaction front in the explosive material), that Tillotson explicitly wrote that they had NOT measured the reaction velocity, that Harrit’s 5 W/g corresponds to / is the result of an excrutiatingly slow reaction, where the tiny chips (roughly 1 mm x 1mm x 50 µm) smouldered over the course of a whopping 24 minutes; and finally that I showed you another scientific paper, where the authors had measured ordinary epoxy resin to burn at a peak specific power of about the same 5 W/g.
                      Yes, I understand why you didn’t respond to that.

                      Further erroneous claims you made, that I corrected, were

                      As described in the paper the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit.
                      That was wrong. You should have re-read Harrit et al and corrected this error.

                      You claimed, and insisted, that Cole showed that thermite charges could “toss columns” and “powderize concrete”, when in fact he showed no such thing.
                      You corrected the former claim to “the top off of a capped column” – which was FALSE, too – he hurled the box-shaped cutting device. which didn’t weigh very much.
                      You avoid the glaringly obvious observation that Cole needed a huge amount of thermate relative to the object he “tossed”.

                      You claimed “we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study“.
                      I told how this was, again, FALSE, on both counts: No evidence that the red or the gray chip material is “sol-gel”; and no evidence that either is “explosive”.
                      I understand perfectly why you would not wish to respond to this repeated incident of being shown plain wrong.

                      You claimed: “There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?
                      How deeply embarrassed you must have felt when you relized you were wrong and my reply was correct: That there really is no chart of any kind of “the” (or indeed any) primer paint.
                      I understand perfectly why you would not wish to respond to this.

                      It must hurt to be shown wrong so often, about something that you believed in so much with all your heart, and I understand why you would wish to distract from your numerous false claims.

                      By the way: Do you believe there was only one primer paint in the world, or in the WTC?

                    12. Now if Cole did this with regular Thermate, and as you see it blows the top off of the capped box column; what are the possibilities of a sol-gel nanothermate?
                      So what are the alternatives? RDX certainly, DETcord certainly. But these can only be surmised whereas we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study.
                      There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?
                      Obviously we have disparity between your interpretations and the experiments of Cole.

                      One more thing, if Cole’s Thermate has the explosive power we witness in his videos, and we know what it can do to steel, then it certainly has the explosive force to obliterate concrete as well. Especially the light weight concrete making up the floor pans. Full strength concrete was only used in the foundations and sub-basement weight bearing levels of the WTC.

                      Since we are all agreed that the towers exploded violently, throwing box columns and beams weighing multiple tons laterally for up to 600 feet. What mechanisms would each of you propose were at work there?
                      Jens? Utu?

                      Utu didn’t answer whether he/she considers DEW or nukes as options.
                      There are some very simple reasons that both can be ruled out. And this can be discussed further if anyone cares to propose one or the other.
                      \\][//

                    13. Now if Cole did this with regular Thermate, and as you see it blows the top off of the capped box column; what are the possibilities of a sol-gel nanothermate?
                      Invitation to speculation.

                      So what are the alternatives? RDX certainly, DETcord certainly. But these can only be surmised
                      Correct. Speculation.

                      whereas we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study.
                      No, these are both false.
                      There is no evidence in the Jones-Harrit study that the chips are “sol-gel”
                      There is no evidence in the Jones-Harrit study that the chips are “explosive”

                      There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph. Could you have mistaken that graph as a sol-gel graph?
                      No, you are wrong.
                      There is no graph in that paper on any primer paint.

                      You need to re-read the Harrit et al paper. You have grave misconceptions of its content.

                      Obviously we have disparity between your interpretations and the experiments of Cole.
                      No.
                      Cole is doing experiments with thermate.
                      Harrit et al did experiments on an unknown material that derives most of its energy from organic combustion.
                      The disparity has nothing to do with my interpretation, but with the studied materials being so different.

                      One more thing, if Cole’s Thermate has the explosive power we witness in his videos, and we know what it can do to steel, then it certainly has the explosive force to obliterate concrete as well.
                      I do not doubt that you can obliterate concrete or steel to any degree you wish with thermate, nano-thermite. The problem arises with the quantity needed. This has not been properly assessed.

                      Especially the light weight concrete making up the floor pans. Full strength concrete was only used in the foundations and sub-basement weight bearing levels of the WTC.
                      I know. Light-weight concrete easily crumbles, if for example you drop it from a large height. No explosives needed.

                      Since we are all agreed that the towers exploded violently, throwing box columns and beams weighing multiple tons laterally for up to 600 feet. What mechanisms would each of you propose were at work there?
                      Jens? Utu?

                      I do not agree at all that explosions threw the wall panels 600 feet. You’d need totally ridiculous amounts of explosives to do that, which are not in evidence.
                      I think the walls simply toppled over, after the floor joists were stripped off.

                      Utu didn’t answer whether he/she considers DEW or nukes as options.
                      There are some very simple reasons that both can be ruled out. And this can be discussed further if anyone cares to propose one or the other.

                      I certainly don’t propose either, silly.

                      Please bear in mind that what I commented on today is the thermal properties of the red-gray chips as measured and presented in Harrit et al (2009) – and your FALSE claim that the value “5 W/g” is a measure of “brisance”. I have allowed you to distract from that, but would kindly ask you to review my arguments that led to my conclusion that the chips reacted very slowly in Harrit’s DSC experiments.

                      Bottom line is: You have badly misrepresented Harrit’s results in several places now and need to correct those errors.

                    14. to: Jens Schmidt

                      I do not think your calculation of reaction time are correct. It’s way too rough and dividing 1500 J/g by 5W/g gets you something in seconds (which would be correct) but this division is not really justified.

                      In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives. However, the speed of reaction is what is the most important. Mixtures even nano mixtures always will have a lower speed of reaction (explosion) than that of single chemical compound explosive material. So I think you are correct pointing out the slowness of the thermite.

                    15. “Mixtures even nano mixtures always will have a lower speed of reaction (explosion) than that of single chemical compound explosive material.”~Utu

                      So, what proof do you have of such an assertion? It is certainly mere conjecture, even if it is some expert’s conjecture.
                      \\][//

                    16. I do not think your calculation of reaction time are correct. It’s way too rough
                      You dismiss without argument what I asserted with an argument.
                      My argument is solid and stands unrefuted.

                      and dividing 1500 J/g by 5W/g gets you something in seconds (which would be correct) but this division is not really justified.
                      Not seconds – MINUTES!
                      (1500 J/g) / (5 J/(s*g)) = 300 s = 5 min (provided the chip burned at 5 W/g constantly, which of course it did not – it burned even less powerfully all the time exept at peak).

                      And again, the x-axis span from 240-480 °C = 240 °C really is equivalent to 24 minutes of burn time – there is no escaping this direct experimental result!

                      In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives.
                      Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.
                      This despite much of the chips being inert gray layer!
                      The gray layer typically has about the same thickness as the red-layer, and thus about the same volume, but the gray material is clearly much denser than the red material, and thus most of the mass of the chips is made of inert gray layer. If you accept that the energy release comes from the red material alone, then it follows that the energy density of the red material alone must be much larger than the 1.5, 3, 4.5 and 7.5 kJ/g measured by Harrit et al, putting it firmly outside the theoretical maximum of all explosive materials.

                      The exotherm is clearly dominated by combustion of the organic matrix on air. This is a slow process, nothing explosive.

                      However, the speed of reaction is what is the most important.
                      I am not sure it’s the most important. I think energy considerations are more important IMO. But yes, it is important – AND has not been quantified at all by Harrit et al. So we do not know what the speed of reaction is “in the wild”, but we know it was VERY slow in the DSC environment.

                      Mixtures even nano mixtures always will have a lower speed of reaction (explosion) than that of single chemical compound explosive material. So I think you are correct pointing out the slowness of the thermite.
                      There is no evidence at all that the “nano-mixture” in the chips reacts.
                      I think the entire Harrit and Jones claim that the chips are thermitic is bogus.
                      There – now you have it😉

                      (Remember: Frank Legge and Kevin Ryan are co-authors. Coincidence?)

                  4. utu said:

                    “Keep in mind that Jones and Harrit only identified traces of the material:

                    That’s like finding traces of dog crap in your ice cream…..WHAT’S IT DOING THERE???

                    It’s not a natural part of ice cream…..it doesn’t belong there AT ALL…..even in trace amounts.

                    “They do not know how to make it…..”

                    And what difference does that make?

              2. Thanks for clearing that up Art.

                So what do YOU think helped that little old weak Nanothermate, with blowing up the towers?

                Do you have any concept of the brisance of the sol-gel energetics?
                \\][//

                1. The Jones-Harrit paper is not a nanothermite only theory. Even Harrit has admitted that something other than nanothermite most likely destroyed the Twin Towers. As far as I know, there are no calculations to support nanothermite laterally ejecting the steel beams 600 feet.

                    1. At the 9/11 ACCOUNTABILITY CONFERENCE, Feb. 2007 in Chandler, AZ, Steven Jones speculated that other high velocity explosives were also likely to have been employed. His work has never alleged “thermite only”.

                      At that conference, a big wedge was driven dos split the 9/11 activists … the Fetzer camp and the nano-thermite camp. This most recent position by Hoffman, Chandler, Ken Jenkins, Legge and others seems to be directed to split the movement as Craig (I think) noted.

                      The Northern California group seems to me to be a central hub of disinfo agents working to contain evidence linking Israeli and international Jewry to 9-11. Notice the websites listed on Brouillet’s DECEPTION DOLLARS have avoided the zionist-Jewish-Israeli connections and, IMO, presents us with very good clues as to who were wanting to cover-up the 9-11 crimes. Those dollars are deceptive.

                      http://www.bollyn.com/censorship-in-the-9-11-truth-movement/

                  1. “As far as I know, there are no calculations to support nanothermite laterally ejecting the steel beams 600 feet.”~Art

                    We know that the brisance of the material Harrit and Jones discovered is extraordinary. And it is the ONLY explosive that there is actual physical evidence of. I think using the term, “admitted” as far as anything Harrit has said is spurious.
                    If RDX was part of the explosive menu, it is not a proven item. It may be good conjecture according to some, but that is as far as it goes.
                    \\][//

                    1. We do not how extraordinary is extraordinary. One cannot calculate effects even with the best models. At best upper and lower limits (but very broad) can be estimated. This knowledge is mainly experimental. We do not know how extraordinary is this material and how to apply it.

                    2. “We do not know how extraordinary is this material and how to apply it.”~utu

                      No, but the perpetrators certainly did.

                      They would have known by experimentation exactly the brisance of the products they chose to use. I say products in plural, because it is reasonable to assume that having the production capabilities they have, they would have various types for different jobs. Say for the prepping charges to unseat the base of the towers. The shaped charges for the sequenced demolition proper, and then some slow acting product to burn slowly and wander, to eat the remaining evidence that would be in the pile. This last proposition concerns the lingering hot spots and constant flare-ups that took place in the weeks during cleanup and observation.
                      \\][//

                    3. I’M ANSWERING HERE ( do not know what to do when “Reply” does not show under comment?)

                      You: Why not just speak your mind here, rather than nibbling around the edges?
                      I: Speaking my mind? While truth and untruth is binary, the process of searching for it is not. One goes through phases and compares available options knowing that not all the possible options have been made available yet. Not all evidence has been disclosed. It is more like a fuzzy set theory. It is however a very frustrating process because the state of unknowing is hated by mind’s psychology. One has to hold oneself back all the time. It is hard because our psyche wants to rest in the state of resolution. In the so-called truth movement too many people too soon solidify their beliefs around hypotheses they have only fractional evidence for. They achieve psychological sense of certainty and their egos get invested 100% behind it. We all know what is the end result.

                    4. Addressing utu’s comments on October 30, 2015 at 4:29 am

                      Are we really going to get into amateur psychology here? You are befuddled an “fuzzy” here. I am concerned with the physics of this and how what we know of the explosive nature of the destruction of the towers can be explained. If you want to get into the conspiracy of psychological theories, I get enough of that from the professional debunkers.

                      If you have become so confused by all of this that you cannot choose between chemical explosives and nukes or DEW, then I have to admit that I have problems with that, and they are not psychological, they are based on the physics involve in all three propositions: Nukes, DEW, Chemical Explosives. The science goes against the first two, and supports the third, Chemical Explosives.

                      If you Utu want to remain uncommitted, do not make up “psychological” excuses.
                      \\][//

                  2. “The Jones-Harrit paper is not a nanothermite only theory.”~Art

                    The Jones-Harrit paper is not a theory at all – it is the exposition of the results of specific experiments on a specific substance.

                    Now I know both Jones and Harrit were careful to not suggest this material was the main explosive used to take down the towers. However the more I have learned about sol-gel explosives in my research, the more I am personally convinced that sol-gels might have been the only explosives needed.

                    This is my opinion and I do not need to cite anyone else, as it is my own personal finding.

                    \\][//

                    1. utu,

                      The definition of an “experiment” as opposed to a “theory” is not my opinion A hypothesis may develop into a theory based on experimental results. But the actual measurements and analysis of properties, is ‘action’, not supposition, not hypothesizing, not theorizing; which is a mental process that may be ongoing, or suspended during focusing on what is happening before you, and reflected upon later.

                      My summing comment there was my further thoughts running beyond the safe area that Jones and Harrit remained at. As I say; the more I have learned about sol-gel explosives in my research, the more I am personally [subjective conjecture] convinced that sol-gels might have been the only explosives needed. The possibilities of colossal pressure and brisance is very obvious in the open literature on sol-gel energetics. What is in the open literature now is likely surpassed by labs such as Lawrence Livermore and other military explosives labs both domestic and European.

                      I have given links on this thread to sites that can be a springboard for however much study you (autodactic) choose to do. That is all the term means Utu, it isn’t some form of boast. You can do it too!! Just think for yourself and follow the data.
                      \\][//

                    2. “No, but the perpetrators certainly did.” – No question they knew very well what they were doing. Stating this however is trivial. We still do know for sure what they used. Perhaps it was some other extraordinary material(s) than what Jones and Harrit discovered in residual quantities.

                    3. “Stating this however is trivial. We still do know for sure what they used.”~utu

                      Stating it is certainly not trivial when it is obvious you cannot follow what is being said to you. Are we about to digress to the point that you argue that 2+2=4, simply because I say it is so?
                      We know one product that was used for sure, the product in the Jones-Harrit paper. We know that there are a variety of sol-gels available at that time as per the comparison graphs. And we know the state of damage incurred. Thus we can reasonably hypothesize the various grades used.

                      Do I detect a covert DEW-head in our midst here? If so come out and say it Utu. It would be nice to know where you are really coming from. Perhaps the nuclear theory is your real forte’?
                      Why not just speak your mind here, rather than nibbling around the edges?
                      There is something going on here, unless you are just intent on being obnoxious.
                      \\][//

                    4. To hybridrogue1 October 30, 2015 at 4:41 am

                      One has to commit to a,b or c? That’s it? You obviously are already committed? Obviously, chemical explosives is a favorable hypothesis and I knew that w/o Jones and Harrit. These buildings could have been brought down with standard explosives too and it’s pretty well know how to do it. But there are some strange phenomena surrounding the demolition that need to be addressed.

          2. Art,

            I am not aware of anyone who believes it was only nanothermite that brought the towers down. As I said in my comment to Sheila, Niels Harrit thinks it only played a small role. And I have very high regard for his integrity. We can’t discount a position because we have doubts about some of the people that support the position.

            1. I have ran across lots of people who believe the nanothermite only theory. You are right, we can’t discount a position because we have doubts about some of the people that support the position and your response to her was very respectable. But I don’t think Shelia’s questioning is at all bizarre nor do I think ridiculing those that do not subscribe to a certain theory is beneficial.

              1. “nor do I think ridiculing those that do not subscribe to a certain theory is beneficial.”~Art

                I don’t think that my opinion that Sheila’s position is “bizarre” qualifies as particularly ‘ridiculing’. Nor do I think that personal opinions should have to meet yours or anyone else’s standards.
                Further, I would think it up to Sheila herself to defend her position.
                \\][//

            2. Craig,

              Let’s be clear here, Sheila not only questioned the Nanothermates as insufficient to have felled the towers; she said she agreed that the proposition that Nukes were involved made sense to her. Let’s address her entire comment, not cherrypick and isolate the part about Nanothermates.
              \\][//

              1. HR,

                I react to what I think is important. You are free to take her on about nukes, although I don’t think every mention of nukes should cause people to freak out. I think the type of material used to demolish the towers is not high on my list of priorities to fight over. I’m more concerned with how we convince official story believers to reconsider what they’ve been told.

                1. Thanks Craig,

                  I am not particularly anxious to take Sheila on about nukes. It is a prospect that is easily dismissed with but a few well reasoned and substantive point. I don’t think it is worth burdening this thread with that argument. What I would suggest is that Sheila read this page on my blog, and by page, I mean all of my commentary after the initial remarks put in the abstract — the whole argument:
                  https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/disinformation-dew-nuke/

                  I would especially point out my comment on “The Prager Psyop” that addresses all the substances he claims prove a nuclear reaction.
                  \\][//

  11. Craig, I think that a report on Victoria Ashley’s history might be interesting. Kevin Barrett has postulated her relationship turned Hoffman.
    I’m sending CITY Another twenty in the morning.😉

      1. With Agent Wright gone, it will be different around here…..kinda like a wart you’ve had on your nose since you were a teenager, and then you finally have it removed…..you feel your nose and something’s missing…..I used to play with it and scratch it, but now it’s gone.😦

    1. Ah, splendid! I sincerely cannot say I will miss the stooge. I don’t have champagne, but I do have a new pot of hot java to celebrate with!!

      Thank you Craig.

      “Alas Alons! give him the point and be done with it” — ‘The Sword Fight On The Beach’ — title of a painting by Howard Pyle
      \\][//

      1. Craig McKee, I don’t like this forum format, and this is meant to be more addressed to you. I’m not regular email/forum person as I use to be a decade ago. So if this continues to be an ongoing thread, I may request that we message each other privately, or move to a more accessible forum (Facebook) that doesn’t have limitations like this site. And for the record, i believe i have spoken to you off Facebook before in regards to statements i made to nano-thermite being too obscure as proof, but to a mutual agreement of Israel being behind it.

        I am well aware the claims I am making goes against the grain of the truth movement (as still does the Israel issues in some circles). The fact that i am defending “part” of the official version with a plane impacting the Pentagon does not;

        A.) Say that I’m claiming Al Qaeda still did 9/11

        B.) insinuating that the plane wasn’t partially operated by a ground control.

        or C.) That i disagree with some on the common anomalies and theories the Truth movement believes, with the airport security cameras, limited hijackers and fake and stolen ID’s. Those claims still stand in my argument.

        So be careful what any of you try to imply with me, or speculate that i have hidden agenda, or a shill , or what aver your typical default accusation you may have. I’ve heard it all before. 9/11 research goes beyond buildings falling, if you’re trying to explain who and how it was once.

        But to answer the question.. I would think you people would be well aware that photographs of the plane debris (inside and out) of the Pentagon were released to the public because of the Zacharias Moussaoui trial, as well as other evidence? But I guess some would rather cherry pick from government evidence to string up there incomplete theories against the government, that had already cherry picked out lesser evidence to them, to begin with. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

        1. Photographs of plane parts, is a very far cry from positively identifying particular parts, from a particular airframe, with a particular tail number, with particular manifests of crew and passengers. Ironically, again, the multi-headed hydra U.S. Government and its legions of departments, particularly FAA, NTSB, and FBI inserted themselves into aircraft accountability some fifty years ago… still LOOONG after privately developed aviation practices and methods had been well established. Log booking pilot hours and the planes they operated, log booking airframe maintanance and the hands that worked on them… multi-location (redundancy in the event of an air/ground disaster) of manufactured airframes and the source (to the exact piece of dirt the ore was refined from) WAS NOT developed by bureaucrats after the fact, but rather by highly interested parties trying to improve and perfect aircraft safety and accountability by the very people most at risk, the aircrews and paying passengers.

          Get your head around this, please… accountability by log books and serialized part numbering… originally self organized, later became MANDATORY according to increadibly thick FAA Regulation for all parties engaged in flight operations.

          If you now want to consider all that EXTRA work, meaningless, by all means do so… I will increase my efforts of warning the unsuspecting public that the air travel business in vastly more dangerous than ever while now under Government Un-Accountability.

        2. Dj,

          I don’t know when we would have spoken off Facebook. I’m afraid I don’t recall that. As for the forum format not being to your liking: it’s not a forum as much as it is a blog with comments. We just use it as a forum. Yes, there are forums that are strictly that and which work very well for that purpose.

          I have not suggested you are a shill or anything else. You made a blunt statement in another comment (“Chandler is correct. A plane did hit the Pentagon. Those who doubt it, show me you’re evidence for no plane hitting the Pentagon?”) and I asked you to support your statement. The evidence against a plane impact is all through this blog. But I’m sure we can go over the points again.

          You’ve also done exactly what you imply people here will do to you. With this statement: “So be careful what any of you try to imply with me, or speculate that i have hidden agenda, or a shill , or what aver your typical default accusation you may have.” Typical default accusation? You shouldn’t complain about being prejudged and then do the same thing to others.

          Then there’s this: “But I guess some would rather cherry pick from government evidence to string up there incomplete theories against the government, that had already cherry picked out lesser evidence to them, to begin with.”

          Please give specific exaamples. Government evidence cannot be taken at face value, don’t you agree? Don’t we have to evaluate all evidence in the context of where it came from?

          As for, “incomplete theories against the government,” I can’t imagine what you mean by that. Do you think the government has not been treated fairly by the Truth Movement? And if you read “incomplete theories here,” please give us you complete theory.

          1. Forum, blog, whatever. Sorry I really don’t like this format. It’s too long to scroll and keep focus with all these little comments directed towards me, going off subject on some. So I rather just direct this message to Mr. McKee, and I’m ignoring the rest.

            I recognize your face and name, I am quite certain we have talked on Facebook before. If you add me on Facebook you’ll see the previous conversation we’ve had. I am well acquainted with numerous people who have worked with AE.

            Reason I come off defensive, is because as of recent, I’ve had a portion of emotionally invested truthers irrationally call me a shill without considering my years of being public and activist for 9/11 truth, which I find disturbing with how much the movement is still correct on the majority of the tragic deaths (bombs inside the WTC).

            But I do not understand how there is evidence for plane denial on this blog, contrary to witness and photographic evidence of a plane having hit the Pentagon? Nor the fact that most 9/11 researchers never question people in DC who saw the plane, or dare to interview family victims from that itself, (especially when there is a chance these witnesses and family victims could of found solidarity within the truth movement, or just having legitimate concerns for the victims and obvious lies at the WTC).

            The situation(scene) lacking media and bystander cameras at the Pentagon is a separate subject, and so is whatever reasons we could speculate why the authorities would not release the 80 camera angles (which i wish they would release too), but suspiciously release angles that are poor.

            But because there is limited video documentation of the Pentagon strike, that doesn’t mean we should just ignore or throw away all the early conclusive witness accounts to that strike, and only accept those who saw and witnessed the bombs at the WTC, just because were lucky enough to have had lot of news cameras as proof to validate those claims.

            By me referring to “government evidence”, is the actual submissions from the crime scenes, not just a general overall blanket term, to include the 9/11 Commission report, which one doesn’t have to read to know is a lie (when 6 of commissioners already stated it was set up to fail, a white wash, and a cover up) which was assembled after the crime scene evidence was already gathered. That is the context of how these items came about. Maybe you haven’t looked at all of it, but even the evidence gathered for the plane incidents is contrary to the 9/11 Commission report (amongst some other things I’ve even discovered recent that are not in there, besides the popular building 7).

            As an irrational question of, do I trust the government? No. But what we accept in comparison of how our government of yesteryear has gotten into wars through lies, is way different now than just assuming our government (military) is all evil and encompassing, and will just kill its own, on its own turf. The war deception strategies then still differ, as does the technology to spy and terrorize, and the global stage itself. Also what matters is what sort of research you may have done on previous false flags, and whether if there is a correlation or similar agenda to them, or not?

            It will take a great detail to give you my complete theory on whom and how 9/11 was done. Because my theory allows a lot more room and sound arguments for other operational theories to how this may have been orchestrated. It’s sort of an “I know how much I don’t know, about 9/11” sort of answer, by sticking to only concrete evidence. Like for example, we know for a fact Israelis were caught in and around, and all involved with 9/11. Isn’t that just as strong (or stronger) evidence than just paying attention to how building falls down?

            Now if you’re not going to accept what photographic and witness evidence there is at the Pentagon, I will honor that, because I understand where you’re coming from. But that also means that cant really go no further If you’re just going to ignore evidence, that’s not acceptable to you. So I’m not going to spend my time explaining out my entire Pentagon theory, as it will also have to include explaining the rest of the attacks in greater details.

            As even cited in movies like Loose Change, a big clue to what I’m saying, you should recognize is evidence that was released by authorities and yet contrary to the official version, which is the passenger flight manifest for flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

            With your willful limitations, in order to get around to proving that there was a plane that hit the Pentagon, and that there were planes that still crashed into the WTC (I hope some of you at least agree on that part?) and in Shanksville, and to proving there where hijackers, and that there where hijackings and passengers on those planes, phone calls and all, who died on those planes, we will have to do a little terrorism research, that goes into areas others are afraid to look at, and is too long to explain.

            I seem to recall you are aware of Israeli involvement? Then I can gladly build my theory explanation step by step, versus preconceived notions from the truth movement. But it will also have to include facts about the WTC 1993 bombing (and few worthy points about Iran Contra too). I know it’s not the same thing, and there were no planes involved. But the official versions of those events are linked (and could be easily defined as both being Al Qaeda events , but are strangely not) , however they still are linked the same way as what us truthers implicate who did 9/11. The WTC 1993 bombing is not off topic at all, and it’s (what I think) shameful that the truth movement really has not done much research on this, other than watching Alex Jones movies. There are beyond not only similarities, but it possibly may been done for the same agenda as what 9/11 was for.

            So Mr. McKee, if you would like to learn more on what research I have done, please add me on Facebook and I will speak to you privately or public there. There is no point for me to continue on this thread, if conversation on the Pentagon is going to be limited to “I don’t trust the government”, or “the government could just fabricate evidence” without any proof to that either, plus that I really don’t like this format. I only hope the rest of you will challenge yourselves more to look at evidence and other witness accounts, that may counter what you already believe, (or what you would call, defending the official version), especially if you are one not afraid to implicate Israel. I’ll just give you one more last clue. Suicidal terrorism isn’t limited to Muslims and Japanese.

            One more response to a later comment.. I myself actually enjoy debating not only plane denial truther’s but debunkers too (on Facebook). It’s just kind of funny that it’s sort of a 50/50 split between agreeing with both groups. But both groups don’t seem to know anything about the 1993 WTC bombing either. But with debunkers, they seem to run in fear from the Israeli evidence or call me anti-Semite.

            1. “Forum, blog, whatever. Sorry I really don’t like this format. It’s too long to scroll and keep focus with all these little comments directed towards me, going off subject on some. So I rather just direct this message to Mr. McKee, and I’m ignoring the rest.” [short quote from a long meandering post]

              I’ll be short and to the point: Who accuses of that which they are being and doing … projecting their own failings upon others?

            2. djthermaldetonator,

              I appreciate that you addressed this latest comment to Mr McKee, but I feel compelled to disabuse you of your gross misconceptions concerning our findings on the matter of the Pentagon event. You have been invited to study our case first hand on your own cognizance. You have most obviously failed to do so, or your current remarks would be recognized even by yourself to be incorrect – were you to be frank with yourself.

              The issues are in fact straight forward, if not simple to digest.

              The case is straightforward in that the plane proven to be on the north of Citgo path cannot have hit the light poles nor made the damage within the Pentagon at the angle that damage is documented to be.

              The case is not simple to digest because the matter of that proof rests for the most part on the witnesses to the event that were in the proper place and time to witness the plane on that path. It is difficult to digest this because the witness testimony is a huge meal that must be taken one bite at a time. It takes a great appetite to be determined enough to find the truth that lies in this huge meal. Only when you are willing to go through our assessment of the witness testimonies, and follow the very careful reasoning put to them will you have the capacity to digest this rather complex assessment.

              The second point is less complex and concerns the so-called “evidence”. There simply is no legitimate evidence for an aircraft crash at the Pentagon. You will find no legitimate chains of custody in the official record for any of this asserted evidence. You will find that even the so-called FDR evidence is illegitimate and must be dismissed as tainted. You will find there is not a single aircraft change-part list of ID’s for any of the asserted evidence.
              You will be left with the only reasonable conclusion one can make in such a situation, that being that there was “evidence planted” at the scene of the crime by the perpetrators of that crime..

              I will also address the 1993 “terrorist bombing” of the WTC. As well as your remarks on the bombing of the Murrah building. But those will be in a separate, or perhaps several separate commentaries here.
              \\][//

                1. djthermaldetonator,

                  I do not do facebook, I don’t like their policies and refuse to be stalked by their algorithm.
                  If we are done here – so be it, I find your arguments from ignorance untenable at any rate.
                  \\][//

                    1. “but i will relay that you via email,”~djthermaldetonator

                      No you will certainly not. If you are able to keep making remarks here with this evasion tactic, you would be able to make your arguments here just as well.

                      My personal email is meant for my personal friends and acquaintances. You can also read my blog at:
                      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/911-false-flag-psyop/
                      And:
                      https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/10/16/truther-no-more-david-chandler-embraces-official-pentagon-story/
                      \\][//

            3. djthermaldetonator,

              I will make this one short and sweet. As you have access to all of the issues that have been addressed on this blog by simply going down the list under the heading; “ARCHIVES”, it is your own unwillingness to grasp what has been previously addressed on this blog;

              >The Murrah bombing has been addressed in great detail here

              >The Shanksville crash as been addressed albeit in somewhat less detail. There was no crash at the old strip mine as is asserted in the official narrative.

              >The 1993 bombing of WTC using the explosive supplied by the FBi to the informant, and his taping of their admission to allowing that bomb to be placed and detonated by the patsies that they set up, has not been addressed in sufficient detail here, but I know the case intimately personally.

              Additionally I have been on the trail of the government perpetrators in earnest from the time of the coup d’etat in Dallas in 1963. And am aware of the Stockton California false flag school yard shootings that were meant to pass the first legislation against “assault rifles”.

              Also the Columbine false flag event with the same anti-gun agenda.

              Skipping a few we come to the Branch Davidian compound attack by the military in breach of the Posse Comitatus Act (1878)

              The Randy Weaver incident that was actually the proximate cause of Timothy McVeigh’s impetus for joining the elOhim militia group on the Oklahoma/Arkansas border, which led to his involvement as a patsy for the Oklahoma bombing.

              This history of false flag and other PSYOPs is long and complex when one simply accounts for the ones made in Amerika.
              \\][//

              1. Mr hybridrogue1, not interested in you’re blog and threading back to you here. Have a nice life.

                Mr. sockpuppet2012 , I’ve meet Craig Ranke and know his films.
                A.) 4 people out of countless of others who witnesses the plane and path, is not conclusive proof that there wasn’t a plane, or that was a missile, a drone, a hologram, or even a “stand down order”.
                B.) Mr Ranke no longer cares to be involved in the movement, nor want’s to debate his findings.

                Now, if you care to compare notes on your claims, or want my answers to the rest of your questions, i’l gladly do so via email or Facebook. Hell, i might even try to resurrect Mr Ranke for you. I dont run a blog, nor care to validate one that’s not practical. i’m done here.

                1. djthermaldetonator said:

                  “Mr. sockpuppet2012 , I’ve meet Craig Ranke and know his films.
                  A.) 4 people out of countless of others who witnesses the plane and path, is not conclusive proof that there wasn’t a plane”

                  If you think there were only four witnesses to the NoC flight path, then you know NOTHING of Craig Ranke’s films or website.

                  If you think Craig Ranke says there was no plane, then you know nothing of his films and website.

                  Can you name one of the “countless of others who witnesses the plane and path”?

                  “….. or that was a missile, a drone, a hologram…..”

                  Why do you bring up that nonsense?…..that’s just more proof that you are completely unfamiliar with Ranke’s films and website.

                  Your status as a shill, a gatekeeper and a liar is obvious…..you stand out like a clown at a funeral!

                  “Mr Ranke no longer cares to be involved in the movement, nor want’s to debate his findings”

                  That’s two more lies.
                  He probably doesn’t want to waste his time with you, and you spin that into “he doesn’t want to debate anyone”.

                  Craig Ranke would gladly debate Chandler, Cole, Legge, Hoffman, Deets or Ryan or any of the other well known detractors of his work on camera, but why would he want to waste his time with you?

                  “Now, if you care to compare notes on your claims, or want my answers to the rest of your questions, i’l gladly do so via email or Facebook”

                  Why are you afraid to discuss your nonsense here, where you are unable to block people and delete comments?

                  Why are you so interested in collecting email addresses?

                  “Hell, i might even try to resurrect Mr Ranke for you”

                  What makes you think you have any influence over Graig Ranke?…..you’re not even familiar with his films or website.

                  “i’m done here”

                  I doubt that.

                  1. sockpuppet2012,

                    This clown, djthermaldetonator turned out to be another turnip without a drop of blood or substance. It seem that not a single Chandlerite can make even the beginning of an argument here. Not a single one will make an argument of substance, just hot wind.
                    \\][//

                    1. Exactly, Willy!

                      That seems to be a hallmark, a distinguishing characteristic of the Pentagon “debunkers”.

                      Dwayne Deets surprised me by coming here and actually trying to make sense of his nonsense, but it was a total flop.

                      There is no way any of the Chandler, Cole, Legge clan will ever debate a knowledgeable person in a formal debate in front of an audience and a camera.

                      They would look like absolute fools!

                2. djthermaldetonator,

                  Well now if that isn’t a bunch of oinking rhetorical bilge you just spewed. You obviously haven”t a thing of substance to offer. So you may as well can the bullshit and get lost.
                  \\][//

            4. djthermaldetonator

              The Criteria for Assessing the Reliability of Witness Testimony

              The most critical would be:

              1. — POV — and Distance from event witnessed

              2. – Consideration of obstructions a witness’ position would encounter

              3. – Human perception of events that occur in a matter of seconds and less – the likelihood of a duck response to a nearby explosive event.

              We might add to these:

              4. — Possible conflict of interests

              5. — Obvious conflict of interests

              6. — Internal conflicts of a single witness’ testimony, and a detailed analysis of how this might be (see 3rd critical criteria point)

              7. — Established history of lying

              8. — Conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.

              Plus; particular circumstances of specific witnesses, that could effect the reliability of a certain witness.
              \\][//

            5. djthermaldetonator said:

              “Reason I come off defensive, is because as of recent, I’ve had a portion of emotionally invested truthers irrationally call me a shill…..”

              Who but a shill would start his comment off by complaining bout being called a shill?
              We’ve all been called shills…..it goes in one ear and out the other…..it rolls off us like water off a duck’s back.

              “…..without considering my years of being public and activist for 9/11 truth, which I find disturbing…..”

              Years in the 911 Truth movement is no evidence of not being a shill.
              Finding being called a shill “disturbing” could be a sign of a shill.

              “But I do not understand how there is evidence for plane denial on this blog, contrary to witness and photographic evidence of a plane having hit the Pentagon?”

              The witnesses, including many NoC witnesses only BELIEVE a plane struck the Pentagon, but it was a deception; it is IMPOSSIBLE that a plane hit the Pentagon.

              There is no photographic evidence whatsoever of a plane having hit the Pentagon.

              “Nor the fact that most 9/11 researchers never question people in DC who saw the plane…..”

              Craig Ranke interviewed people who saw the plane:

              “…..or dare to interview family victims from that itself, (especially when there is a chance these witnesses and family victims could of found solidarity within the truth movement, or just having legitimate concerns for the victims and obvious lies at the WTC)”

              Do you know of any Pentagon family members that are willing to be interviewed?
              You say you’ve been an activist in the 911 Truth movement for a long time; how many victims’ family members have you interviewed?

              Have you posted your interviews on the internet somewhere where we can see them?

              “…..whatever reasons we could speculate why the authorities would not release the 80 camera angles (which i wish they would release too), but suspiciously release angles that are poor”

              There’s no speculation involved…..”They” can’t release the videos from the Pentagon cameras because they would all show, with crystal clarity, a low flying, slow flying plane resembling a commercial airliner approaching the Pentagon, banking to the right(left to the camera), “lifting up”, and flying over the cameras with an explosion immediately following.

              “But because there is limited video documentation of the Pentagon strike…..”

              There is no video documentation of the Pentagon “strike”; there was no strike, it was pre-planted explosives.

              “…..that doesn’t mean we should just ignore or throw away all the early conclusive witness accounts to that strike”

              What witnesses are you referring to?

              “Now if you’re not going to accept what photographic and witness evidence there is at the Pentagon…..”

              You’re the one that’s rejecting the witness evidence at the Pentagon.

              “…..and that there where hijackings and in Shanksville…..”

              There were no hijackers…..there was no evidence of a plane at Shanksville.

              “So Mr. McKee, if you would like to learn more on what research I have done, please add me on Facebook and I will speak to you privately or public there. There is no point for me to continue on this thread…..”

              If you had confidence in your “theories”, you would gladly expose them to the light of day on every forum or blog you were allowed to…..what’s with the secrecy?

              “I really don’t like this format”

              I don’t blame you…..there are many well informed people on this blog that would show the falsehood of your “theories”
              You’re better off discussing your evidence “in private”, or in the dark.

              “I only hope the rest of you will challenge yourselves more to look at evidence and other witness accounts, that may counter what you already believe…..”

              We wait with baited breath for you to show it to us!

              “I myself actually enjoy debating not only plane denial truther’s but debunkers too (on Facebook)”

              Yes, I can see how you would feel safe there, where you can block people and delete comments.

        3. djthermaldetonator said:

          “Craig McKee, I don’t like this forum format, and this is meant to be more addressed to you”

          djthermaldetonator, that has to be the funniest thing I’ve ever read on this forum…..I wonder if Craig McKee has the same sense of humor as myself.

          1. It is funny now that you mention it. It’s also funny when someone makes their first appearance on a forum already accusing those running it of labelling them as shills. Personally, I’m more than happy to discuss the evidence with someone who believes the official story (or any part of it) if I believe they are sincere and open to changing their view if the strength of the evidence merits that. We actually don’t get the chance to communicate with people like that very often here.

            1. Craig said:

              “I’m more than happy to discuss the evidence with someone who believes the official story (or any part of it) if I believe they are sincere and open to changing their view if the strength of the evidence merits that. We actually don’t get the chance to communicate with people like that very often here”

              Absolutely!…..it would be pretty boring and nonproductive if everyone on this blog saw eye to eye.

        4. “The “no-plane” propaganda is a trap set to discredit the 9-11 truth movement. Once the propagandists are able ot trick the majority of the 9-11 truth movement into going along with this nonsense (or failing that, create the public illusion that the majority of the 9-11 truth movement are going along with this nonsense), one of the confiscated videos that clearly shows the 757 slamming into the Pentagon will be made public, to discredit the entire 9-11 truth movement in one fell swoop, silencing those questions the government cannot answer. To play this trick, the “no-planers” are promote an incredibly complex conspiracy to hide a missile, while denying the possibility of an equally complex conspiracy to plant the illusion of one.”~Whatreallyhappened

          Yes the old ‘Honey Trap’ assertion we have discussed at length here. 14 years later and…
          gosh oh gee!!! Still no public showing of a clear video of a plane hitting the Pentagon. And it is much too late for them to attempt a CGI fake of that, because we are all familiar with the telltale signs of such.

          You go ahead djthermaldetonator, recite the serial numbers from those “airplane parts” with due citations. We are dying to see this after all of these years!!
          \\][//

    1. That’s funny djthermaldetonator,

      The answer for that is shown all over this blog on any page that has the word, “Pentagon” in the title. So find out what the argument is against a plane hitting the Pentagon, and THEN present evidence you think can overwhelm that argument.
      \\][//

    2. Picking up right where we left this issue last time… the difficulty does not lie with those who are skeptical that a large flying craft struck the Sandiagon. Clear thinking notices that the Prosecution (in the original form immediately after the event in the accusations made by the U.S. Government and its stenographic media, that baddies from a far-off land were clever enough to foil the greatest defense machine ever constructed and even foiled and confounded Official investigators searching diligently to produce the evidence)… failed to produce evidence supporting their allegations.

      The insidious concept that somehow skeptics of the Prosecution’s allegations should somehow produce the negative evidence, is insidious for its attempt to invert rather ancient concepts of proof in terms of lawful prosecution.

      The burden is not upon those who are unconvinced, the original failure is in the prosecution failing to make its case.

      That skeptics are compelled now at this late date, to consider that the prosecution is in fact hiding something or other, or in fact engaged in some coverup, or was/is maybe involved in the actual crime itself… should come as little surprise to those familiar with a rather deplorable track record of truth-telling on the part of the original prosecution.

      That the tables have turned, prosecution now seen as defense, should also come as little surprise.

      What might have Government Loyalist verklempt, is the gall they perceive in such skeptics for daring to demand the same original evidence (which would now be exculpatory of the Government), for the Government to simply produce.

      Again, it should be no surprise that skeptics will view such evidence (if ever produced) very carefully before accepting it as proof. Well, considering that the Government should have produced such evidence well before exacting “revenge killing and destruction” upon those the Government accused, and the highly advanced skills within such a Government to produce copious quantities of FAKE documentation.

      It would be wise (cough cough) if such Government Loyalist considered that the skeptics are excersizing extraordinary patience with a subject of great importance, fully within sound logic to declare the Government not only in the wrong, but found guilty of mass murder and war crimes… yet… this government still enjoys mass approval in the form of tax fillings and an absence of widespread riots in the streets out for blood from government employees… if for no other reason than the incredibly bad name this government has left upon America.

      Government Loyalists demanding proof of a negative… that there, is galling irony.

      1. Next thing you know, Government will be demanding its Personhood status and seeking the protections of the Bill of Rights (which it’s been wiping its butt with for decades).

        The gall just doesn’t stop flowing.

        1. “Next thing you know, Government will be demanding its Personhood status and seeking the protections of the Bill of Rights (which it’s been wiping its butt with for decades).” ~Pernambuco

          This has been happening already. I recall watching the Iran-Contra Hearings, during which many officers under the color of authority, claimed the protection of the 5th Amendment and refused to testify on particular points. An officer under color of authority has no right to protection under the Bill of Rights as Pernambuco has correctly pointed out.

          Ollie North was particularly galling in his clinging to the 5th as he in fact was already given immunity for his open testimony – yet he still claimed the 5th, and the fact that this was allowed to proceed in this manner convinced me with finality that the entire so-called “government” is totally corrupt.

          To look back on how this stinking skunk Ollie North became a “national hero” still sickens me, and stands as proof as to how ignorant and gullible the Amerikan people are.
          “uhhh … gawblesmurkah …”
          \\][//

      2. Well stated Pernambuco and I agree completely. A troll who used to haunt this place, sorry I have forgotten his/her/its name, was keen to invert the burden of proof onto us as well. I have been asked to prove a negative a number of times as well by these same individuals/bots.

    3. Asking us to prove a negative is not a good way to start. Why don’t you start by showing us proof a plane did hit since the burden of proof is on you not us.

    4. It’s not really that important what happened to Pentagon. It was man made that we know. Important is to identify the men who did it. If gov wanted to prove that plane hit Pentagon they could manufacture enough evidence to convince any jury. They could show perfect pictures with airplane engines with identifiable serial numbers. And we would not be able to prove that the fake pictures (if they were fake) are fake. But there will be no court nor jury. Just find the men.

      1. UTU,

        Actually it is much more difficult to fake pictures and video than you think it is, especially if experts are going to be scrutinizing the fakes closely. If the government were caught releasing fakes it would be damning evidence against them. So your premise that they could get away with faking whatever they want is false. Obama’s fake birth certificate was discovered as fake the same day the White House released it. Real photo and software experts know it is a fake and a very poor one at that.

        Also it is monumentally important what happened at the pentagon because if you never uncover what really happened and how and who could have done it then you cannot “identify the men who did it” now can you? Your logic is backward and your premise is flawed.

  12. The only way the Pentagon should ever be mention is as an example of how to create disinformation, until there’s a proper investigation. And, like any good prosecutor focus on the most cogent facts at hand. Unless you believe there were n o planes at all used on 9/11 -as many do. Because that’s how this works. That’s what you’re perpetuating by arguing that a missile hit the pentagon, or whatever. The whole notion is counter-intuitive from the start as there is no way the people who did this could have known ahead of time the entire event would not be photographed and filmed 8 different ways. That alone makes the hypothesis untenable -whatever the Pentagon appears like. We must recognize things are often quite other than they appear and look closer. For example the outer rings of pentagon do not have occupied floors that terminate at ground level but from the top floor to the 3rd with columns and empty space floors below, (dont ask me why,, but I read this and then I looked and you can actually see it in a high res photo of the building where in the offices on the left side of the impact hole) And that’s right where the plane flew into.. with unbelievable precision.. obviously that of computer guidance. But yeah, let’s do like good prosecutors and focus on the most cogent fact-based evidence only,, -as ae911truth does.

    1. If you mean we should look at evidence, I agree. If you mean we shouldn’t do anything until there is a “proper investigation” then I couldn’t disagree more.

      Most people who have looked at the evidence don’t think a missile hit. And you can’t judge what happened by what you think the government would or would not have done. You look at the evidence.

    2. “The only way the Pentagon should ever be mention is as an example of how to create disinformation”~ajlucientes

      Why don’t you bitch at Chandler, Cole, Ryan, and Legge about this: They are the ones running a full court press on the Pentagon issue for the last couple years.

      You say, ” I looked and you can actually see it in a high res photo of the building where in the offices on the left side of the impact hole) And that’s right where the plane flew into.. with unbelievable precision.. obviously that of computer guidance. But yeah, let’s do like good prosecutors and focus on the most cogent fact-based evidence only,, -as ae911truth does.”

      So, “that’s right where the plane flew into” is it? — Yes good prosecutors focus on the most cogent fact-based evidence only. So where is your “cogent fact-based evidence”?
      I have seen nothing but unsubstantiated, baseless assertions from you here so far.
      \\][//

  13. 9/11 – Why the Facts of 911 are Suppressed – John McMurtry
    A long but brilliant presentation – don’t miss it!


    \\][//

  14. I’m currently watching this documentary about the ocean crash of Swiss Air 111. Notice the thoroughness of the investigation. Notice the “hundreds of thousands of pounds of wreckage” and “millions of plane pieces.” Notice how each and every piece is accounted for.

  15. Its like looking at the difference between the October 12 Ankara bombing and Boston. To realize just how fake Boston was.

  16. I just watched AMERICAN SNIPER; it really pissed me off, I waited through the whole movie to see that psycho serial killer Chris Kyle get killed—and they didn’t even show it. What a rip off!!!
    “uhh…gawblesmurkah…”
    \\][//

    1. I don’t see critiquing AMERICAN SNIPER as “film” as “art” or the actors capabilities, the camera work, none of that as a honest reaction to what is in essence vile and insidious PROPAGANDA. If one doesn’t pause to reflect on the fact that these Amerikans are waging a war of aggression in a country half the world away, murdering and maiming men women and children that were never in any way a threat to the United States, then one is sucked into a state of deep delusion.

      The real Chris Kyle was a psychopathic serial killer let loose in a theater sanctioned by an illegitimate criminal regime. There is no moral excuse for this activity, and Eastwood has no moral excuse for his Jingo American Exceptionalist Propaganda. Period.
      \\][//

    2. I can’t bring myself to dignify such a piece of propaganda with my precious life hours.

      “They” are furious that Jesse Ventura exposed him as a liar in court.

      Chink in the propaganda armor.

      1. The video only cost me a buck to rent from the video store…I guess Eastwood might get as much as a couple cents in royalty from that. Yea it is nothing but propaganda. Lol, like I said. I mainly wanted to see the son-of-a-bitch get shot and killed. I wondered how that played out. So I watched to whole piece of junk film. and they skipped that part – fading out as Kyle’s wife watched from the doorway as Kyle got into his truck with the guy that was going to shoot him…whatta rip off!!!
        \\][//

  17. I feel the way you do regarding American Sniper about the Steve Jobs film. Why are we glorifying this piece of shit slave labor profiteer? Anyone could turn a tidy profit if they had thousands of Chinese slaves working in deplorable conditions earning virtually nothing to make their products. Jobs is no different than any slave driver in history. He is (or was) a piece of shit exploiter of humanity and it really saddens me that Americans are so disconnected from reality that they actually will go see the film glorifying this scumbag and they will buy his slave made products by the millions. So tragic.

    1. I’ve never even heard of the Jobs film before. But I agree with the critique that all corporatists such as he and his ilk should be exposed as the exploiting criminals they are. He and Gates are both demons hidden under layers of PR and portrayed as some sort of saints.
      \\][//

      1. They will. Like Jews they have good historical memory but are much more tactful. They are taught in schools about opium wars. It’s not forgotten. Now they are working on acquiring the means to do something about it. They may decide on revenge. Will their elites get corrupted and sold out to the banksters before it happens?

  18. Bring the discussion to the main reply box. I am getting sick of bouncing all over this thread, and not seeing comments in proper sequence.
    \\][//

  19. To: hybridrogue1 October 30, 2015 at 4:45 am

    It’s obvious if you think about it. But this I found googling in a book about Gas Phase Synthesis of Aluminum and Core-shell Nickel-iron Oxide Nanoparticles:

    Monomolecular explosive reacts faster with a larger burn rate (detonation velocity) than a thermite. But thermites have higher energy density. Detonation velocity increase 5-10 times when one goes from micro to nano aluminum particles.

  20. To Jens Schmidt

    You said: “Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.”

    This what I found:

    Copper Thermite (Al + CuO as oxidizer) 4.13 kJ/g
    Thermite (powder Al + Fe2O3 as oxidizer) 4.00 kJ/g

    Nitroglycerin 6.38 kJ/g
    TNT 4.61 kJ/g
    HMX 5.70 kJ/g
    Hexanitrobenzene 7.00 kJ/g
    Heptanitrocubane 8.20 kJ/g

    So if you say that Jones-Harrit measured energy density of some organic substance that was in the flake what would it be to give that high 7.5 kJ/g? And since the amount of that substance was probably less than the sample weight it would be even higher unless they measured the net weight after burning it.

    1. Energy densities of organic compounds do not include the weight of external oxygen. In explosive oxidizer containing oxygen in the explosive material. Gasoline has about 40 kJ/g while TNT has 4.6 kJ/g.

      Did Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt the samples in vacuum or in inert gas? If they got 7.5 kJ/g (the highest value for one sample) it is high for explosive (material containing its own oxidizer) but moderate for an organic compound burnt in oxygen.

      Jens Schmidt claims that Jones-Harrit test did not result in actual burning the oxidizer+metallic part of the chips. That only the organic compound was burnt? Is he correct? I think I will have to read their article carefully and then perhaps to contact them. Or do we have any commentators here that studied Jones-Harrit paper thoroughly with understanding who has some physics and chemistry background (can be an autodidact)?

      1. Energy densities of organic compounds do not include the weight of external oxygen. In explosive oxidizer containing oxygen in the explosive material. Gasoline has about 40 kJ/g while TNT has 4.6 kJ/g.
        Yes, you correctly identified the reason why mundane organic materials ususally have so much higher energy densities than monomolecular explosives or thermites.

        Did Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt the samples in vacuum or in inert gas?
        No, they did it under air.

        If they got 7.5 kJ/g (the highest value for one sample) it is high for explosive (material containing its own oxidizer) but moderate for an organic compound burnt in oxygen.
        Yes.
        Not just “high” for explosives, but impossible.

        Jens Schmidt claims that Jones-Harrit test did not result in actual burning the oxidizer+metallic part of the chips. That only the organic compound was burnt? Is he correct?
        Actually, I don’t want to lean too far out the window and claim positively that “only” the organic, and “no” metal burned. I say there is no actual evidence in Harrit et al that any Al did react and significantly affected the DSC results.
        Harrit et al themselves point out that most likely the organic matrix contributed to the exotherm, but they failed to quantify that. I say that the organic matrix most definitely did burn, and it would suffice to explain the DSC data, while thermite alone could not possibly do it. Thermite is neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the thermal behaviour.

        I think I will have to read their article carefully and then perhaps to contact them.
        Good idea.

        Or do we have any commentators here that studied Jones-Harrit paper thoroughly with understanding who has some physics and chemistry background (can be an autodidact)?
        Doubtful. But we’ll see.

        1. “No, they did it under air” – If this is so, then it’s possible that thermite did not participate in the reaction. One would have to perform chemical analysis to find out if some free metals in the initial sample turned into some oxides or whatever they suppose to turn. They got XEDS but they did not do chemical analysis of the sample which is a destructive test. Perhaps they did not have enough samples. I’m disappointed. It seems that Jones-Harrit did not answer very essential questions and their result is very preliminary and thus their claim (like the title) seem to be ezagerated.

          1. “No, they did it under air” – If this is so, then it’s possible that thermite did not participate in the reaction.
            Yes. Looking at the DSC test alone, that is correct.
            Harrit’s and Jones’ case rests in no way on the DSC test as such.
            It rests solely on a claim that elemental iron was created when they burned chips (by whatever method).

            One would have to perform chemical analysis to find out if some free metals in the initial sample turned into some oxides or whatever they suppose to turn. They got XEDS but they did not do chemical analysis of the sample which is a destructive test.
            I am not a specialist in forensic material analysis and cannot judge competently what tests should or should not be done; whether chemical (as opposed to physical) tests would be necessary. But in order to prove thermite and a thermite reaction, you must indeed show that 1. elemental aluminium is present before the reaction (a), and depleted or gone afterward (b).
            2. iron oxide is present before the reaction (a), and depleted or gone afterward (b).
            3. aluminium oxide is present after the reaction (a), but wasn’t there in significant amounts prior (b).
            4. elemental iron is present after the reaction in signicant amounts (a),, but wasn’t there in significant amounts prior (b).
            Of these, only 2(a) is unequivocally proven in the Harrit paper, IMO: The 100 nm grains are definitely Fe2O3 – they have the crystal shape of hematite, and they are most definitely the pigment that maked the red layer red.
            1(a) is claimed by Harrit et al as a conclusion from Figure 17, but in conjunction with Fig 14 and 15, that finding is slightly dubious in my opinion – it is far from clear that they detected a significant amount of elemental Al (the total Al in the red layer of that particular chip is probably well under 5% by weight of the red layer)
            4(a) is also claimed, as resulting from Fig 21 and similar findings, but again the quantities are unclear – are they significant?
            They never looked for or found Al-oxide before or after – that’s the main blunder.

            Perhaps they did not have enough samples. I’m disappointed. It seems that Jones-Harrit did not answer very essential questions and their result is very preliminary and thus their claim (like the title) seem to be ezagerated.
            I agree. Their conclusions are speculative, do not follow necessarily from the data, and are in part even contradicted by the data.

      2. Utu,

        All materials that are “thermitic” contain iron oxide as the base element, this is why thermites can be burnt in water, and other oxygen starved environments thermites produce their own oxygen. “During heating, the samples were contained in alumina pans and air was allowed to flow at 55 milliliters per minute during the heating.”
        So you have your “explosive oxidizer containing oxygen in the explosive material.” but you also have the material ignited in air. I don’t know what this means to you, I am just giving you the information as I understand it.
        \\][//

    2. You said: “Actually, no: 7.5 kJ/g is more than all the “traditional” explosives, and far more than thermite or even nano-thermate.” This what I found:
      [several thermites and traditional explosives, ranging from 4.0 to 6.4 kJ/g]

      Thanks for confirming my claim.

      Hexanitrobenzene 7.00 kJ/g
      Heptanitrocubane 8.20 kJ/g

      These are the only ones approaching or exceeding 7.5 kJ/g.
      Hexanitrobenzene is unstable and not currently used as an explosive
      Heptanitrocubane, acording to WP, “is a new experimental high explosive”.
      Both have chemical formulas with about 20-25% by weight nitrogen. Harrit et al show no nitogen in any of their chips – the red layer matrix material cannot be one of these non-traditional explosives.

      So if you say that Jones-Harrit measured energy density of some organic substance that was in the flake what would it be to give that high 7.5 kJ/g?
      That would be speculative, but any ordinary organic binder (polymer) would fit the bill.
      For example epoxy (20-25 kJ/g) would.
      No doubt cured linseed oil would be in that range (liquid vegetable oil has somewhere near 35 kJ/g).
      Pretty much every organic polymer has an energy density somewhere between 18 and 40+ kJ/g. The exception are halogenized polymers – but the XEDS reveals no significant signals for Flourine, Chlorine or Bromine.

      And since the amount of that substance was probably less than the sample weight it would be even higher unless they measured the net weight after burning it.
      Correct. They would have measured before burning, everything else would be so brainless it would amount to deception.
      The gray layer would usually outweigh the red layer 2:1 or 3:1
      Within the red layer, the organic matrix would certainly outweigh the inorganic particles by a similar margin.

      Mark Basile has quantified the elemental composition of the red layer of his “best” chip. which subsequencly burned very vigorously. He found under 2% Aluminium, under 3% iron, but over 70% carbon. The Al and Fe could combine for no more than 5% by weight thermite, while the carbon content would imply >80% of some standard (non-halogenized) polymer.
      It follows that >95% of the energy output of his chip must have come from ordinary organic combustion.
      Basile may have his estimates somewhat wrong (they are tricky to do), but not by leaps and bounds. There is no reason to think the mass proportions in Harrit’s chips were much different – after all, all sides agree that Basile corroborated Harrit.

      1. According to XEDS red layer had lots of carbon and gray layer had negligible amount of carbon.

        Do you claim that Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt only red layer? Did they do it in oxygen free environment? Red layer has very little oxygen.

        1. According to XEDS red layer had lots of carbon and gray layer had negligible amount of carbon.

          Do you claim that Jones-Harrit when measuring energy density burnt only red layer? Did they do it in oxygen free environment? Red layer has very little oxygen.
          Harrit et al themselves believe that the gray layer is practically inert: It is close to 99% iron and oxygen – that’s fully or partially oxidized iron (or steel). It is conceivable that there would be some phase shifts upon heating in the DSC, and perhaps a bit of further oxidation on air. But this comes with only two possible interpretations:
          Either those reactions are far below the level of the red layer exotherm and thus negligible (this is what Harrit et al believe, and I concur)
          Or these reactions within the gray layer are so significant that they render the entire DSC test inconclusive and essentially worthless.

          1. To Jens Schmidt

            I can see that gray layer is not much talked about in their paper.

            I have questions about Fig. 20 that shows residues of red/grey chips after being ignited in DSC.
            The spheres are small fraction of residues and the residues are still red. Not much different than before test. This means that combustion of samples in DSC was very incomplete. But on the other hand there are no signs of the grey part. Or is it behind? The process of combustion happened at say 400 C (DSC traces) while the existence of iron spheres imply that locally much higher temperature was present. I suspect that they did not really succeed in igniting the samples. Only the organic matrix burned but ironoxide+aluminum mostly did not react except in few spots. So is it legitimate to ask why they did not run DSC scan up to 900 C or more? Only then they could experience a complete thermitic reaction. I think that this organic compound in the samples (if it is really a manufactured thermite) is a binder not some ignitor

            1. utu,

              because the analyses by Harrit et al were incomplete, didn’t follow a well-thought plan and were in part done incompetently, it is difficult and sometimes impossible to draw any certain conclusions from looking at some of the figures. With this in mind:

              I have questions about Fig. 20 that shows residues of red/grey chips after being ignited in DSC.
              The spheres are small fraction of residues and the residues are still red. Not much different than before test. This means that combustion of samples in DSC was very incomplete.

              Yes. The red layer is bright red because it contains iron oxide pigments of ~100 nm particle size – the standard, low-tech, cheap pigment stuff that you find in EVERY red primer paint.
              The residue still being red after combustion means that the red iron oxide pigments are still there in large amounts and have not participated in any reaction. Since these pigments are claimed by Harrit et al to be the oxidizer of the hypothesised thermite reaction, the conclusion is inescapable: The thermite reaction either did NOT occur at all, or it was highly incomplete – which puts the DSC results even farther outside the reach of the fabled thermite reaction.

              But on the other hand there are no signs of the grey part. Or is it behind?
              I can only guess, but I suggest that the gray parts, the shiny blobs, are the gray layer.

              The process of combustion happened at say 400 C (DSC traces) while the existence of iron spheres imply that locally much higher temperature was present.
              Don’t forget that each DSC run went all the way to 700 °C! I can only guess, but I suspect that the gray layer deformed in part into energetically more favorable round shaped as a result of phase transitions – no melting required.

              I suspect that they did not really succeed in igniting the samples. Only the organic matrix burned but ironoxide+aluminum mostly did not react except in few spots.
              And yet you see these large amounts of gray, shiny, roundish things. If you tally the volume of iron oxide pigments relative to the binder before any ignition (for example from Figure 8), and of these “speres” in Fig 20, I think you will find that there wasn’t enough iron in the red layer to produce these.
              They did ignite the chips alright – the exotherms prove it. There simply wasn’t any significant thermite reaction, and all the observations must be explained differently.

              So is it legitimate to ask why they did not run DSC scan up to 900 C or more? Only then they could experience a complete thermitic reaction.
              They had this expectation, from some literature, that nanothermite ignites below 660 °C (the melting point of Al). To test this hypothesis, it was ok to run to just 700 °C. The stupid mistake was to do it under air when you know already that you have an organic binder that is certain to combust somewhere under 700 °C.
              They could have run the test to 1200 °C and then would have found some more phase transitions, reductions of metal oxides, and combustion of char. But still no thermite.

              Ha! If the thermite burned incompletely, as evidenced by the large amount of left-over red irin oxide, there should also be left-over Al, and that should have melted at or below 660 °C, resultung in a pretty sharp endotherm (downward) DSC peak. There is a tiny short such signal in the blue curve near 600 °C – too far off to allow the conclusion “Al”.

              I think that this organic compound in the samples (if it is really a manufactured thermite) is a binder not some ignitor
              I agree.

              1. Jens Schmidt
                October 31, 2015 at 4:45 am

                Thank you for addressing all points (and more) that I brought up. I think that Harrit et al. did not prove that specks they analyzed where thermite. It is also highly questionable whether they observed a thermitic reaction. This is because no chemical analysis was performed. XEDS do not answer uniquely what compounds where present. They only provide XEDS that can be used to obtain info on elemental ratios if the XEDS were calibrated. Were they? The material they analyze contained iron-oxide and aluminum. Though without chemical analysis or at leas calibrated XEDS we do not know for sure whether Fe2O3 was present. It could have been a different oxide. Does the red color points to hematite uniquely? We do not know if the ratio of Fe2O3 to Al is right one for optimal thermitic reaction. It was not proven that Al detected with XEDS was free (not in any compound but in elemental form) and thus ready to be oxidized! The origin of micro spheres discovered after DSC burn is unknown. Harrit et al. suggests that they are iron rich (yes, one XEDS is presented) and that they resulted from stealing oxygen by Al from Fe2O3, i.e., the thermitic reaction. The latter claim cannot be proven without addressing the issue of the gray layer. The gray layer is not discussed. It absence or presence is not mentioned when discussing the post DSC residues. The semi-transparent micro spheres are not explained. Was there enough temperature to produce glass? Or are they organic? As you have mentioned the biggest blunder was performing DSC under normal atmosphere. And I would add that several samples should have been sacrificed for a thorough chemical analysis.

                Question: In reaction Fe2O3+2Al aluminum must be in elemental form. But Al is always covered with an ultra-thin layer of Al oxides. The ratio (by weight) of this oxides to elemental Al increases as particle gets smaller. So it is reasonable to ask how small the particles could be to obtain the optimal reaction? If there was no ultra-thin layer of oxides the answer is simple: smaller is better. But with oxides on Al there is a limit.

                1. Thank you for addressing all points (and more) that I brought up.
                  You’re welcome, utu.

                  I think that Harrit et al. did not prove that specks they analyzed where thermite. It is also highly questionable whether they observed a thermitic reaction.
                  I agree.

                  They only provide XEDS that can be used to obtain info on elemental ratios if the XEDS were calibrated. Were they?
                  Probably not. At least they don’t mention that they used standards to calibrate the XEDS quantification, as would be the usual practice in such papers. I believe that their statement “A conventional quantitative analysis routine was used to estimate the elemental contents” should be interpreted as “conventional” = “not calibrated”, but I can be mistaken.

                  Though without chemical analysis or at leas calibrated XEDS we do not know for sure whether Fe2O3 was present. It could have been a different oxide. Does the red color points to hematite uniquely?
                  Among iron oxide pigments, only hematite is red, and only at at particle sizes below 250 or 500 nm (shades vary – the red gets brighter the smaller the particles are). There of course exist red pigments that are not iron oxide, but so far no one has proposed any candidate among the things we see in the chips. The crystal shape (rhombic facets) also speaks for hematite.

                  We do not know if the ratio of Fe2O3 to Al is right one for optimal thermitic reaction.
                  Correct, no attempt was made to quantify Fe or Al in the entire red layer. Except by Mark Basile, who estimated 1.7% by weight Al and a bit below 3% Fe. The ratio is not far off.

                  It was not proven that Al detected with XEDS was free (not in any compound but in elemental form) and thus ready to be oxidized!
                  Actually, Figure 17 has such a high Al-peak and such a low O-peak that the best interpretation would be that, in that particular spot, we see elemental Al (plus some Al-oxide).

                  The origin of micro spheres discovered after DSC burn is unknown. Harrit et al. suggests that they are iron rich (yes, one XEDS is presented) and that they resulted from stealing oxygen by Al from Fe2O3, i.e., the thermitic reaction. The latter claim cannot be proven without addressing the issue of the gray layer. The gray layer is not discussed. It absence or presence is not mentioned when discussing the post DSC residues.
                  Exactly! Without discussing the gray layer, which is mostly Fe and O, as an obvious candidate origin for iron-rich residue, the argument is incomplete and remains speculative.

                  The semi-transparent micro spheres are not explained. Was there enough temperature to produce glass? Or are they organic?
                  I could only speculate here. We have no data on these transparent spheres. Could be silica something. I don’t know what temperatures would suffice to produce such spheres. I am not convinced none of the various different kinds of chips contained any glassy silica to start with. The Tnemec primer contains amorphous (glassy) silica.

                  As you have mentioned the biggest blunder was performing DSC under normal atmosphere. And I would add that several samples should have been sacrificed for a thorough chemical analysis.
                  I think another weakness is that there are no real before-after comparisons of the same chips.

                  Question: In reaction Fe2O3+2Al aluminum must be in elemental form. But Al is always covered with an ultra-thin layer of Al oxides. The ratio (by weight) of this oxides to elemental Al increases as particle gets smaller. So it is reasonable to ask how small the particles could be to obtain the optimal reaction? If there was no ultra-thin layer of oxides the answer is simple: smaller is better. But with oxides on Al there is a limit.
                  I can’t answer this. You describe correctly the payoffs. The answer would depend on several things: perhaps production process (maybe some processes yield thinner alumina layers?), and of course the application or properties you have in mind.
                  Note that the spere is the shape that maximizes volume for given surface area (or minimizes surface for given volume). Harrit et al show that the Al-content in chips a-d is most probably limited to the platelets that are only tens of nm thin. These would have a passivation layer of several, perhaps as much as 10 nm, on both sides- a very inefficient shape.
                  (And keep in mind that we don’t even know what kinds of particles there are in other chips, such as the one they soaked in MEK! We don’t know that that chip has the same Al- and Si-rich platelets)

      2. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) off-gassed from the pile for months. Such gaseous products are the result of, for example, burning of styrene.

        Homogenous mixing of the correct proportions of nanoparticulates including an oxygen source is a process of combining that is similar to the mixing of dental composites. Application of such materials might be accomplished by spraying and curing might be accomplished using ultraviolet light if the catalyst for polymerization is included in the mixture.

        When I mentioned this possibility on a dental blog, one participant who is an expert in nanotechnology in dental filling materials became quite abusive, ridiculing and shortly quit the discussions–never to return. He and I had been arguing controlled demolition for years on the blog.

          1. And about styrene (or other organocyclic polymer)?
            And about the similarities of manufacture of dental composites to what may have been need to make homogenous distribution in correct proportions of the reactive agents …

            You are correct to note, now 14+ years after the crime, that WHO did 9-11 is far more strategic to discover than quibbling over minutiae about the “HOW”.

        1. rediscover911com, I don’t understand what PAHs, gassing from the pile or dental composites have to do with those red/gray chips. Can you explain?

          1. Determining the actual chemical composition of the red-gray chips can involve working backwards from gaseous byproducts of the combustion. PAHs were found IN ABUNDANCE by the EPA at ground zero. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12953863

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC511010/ Air levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons after the World Trade Center disaster

            Working backwards from the medical complications suffered by many who worked on and around the pile … Multiple myeloma is known to be caused by exposure to certain chemicals such as PAH’s.

            What explains high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon gases? Composite binders of the nano-thermite (remember the Bentham report?) can account for emissions of PAHs for months in the pile. (thus the comparison to the science of dental composites which have an organic polymer matrix blended with inorganic nano-particulates.

            As an aside Gordon Duff who says “nuclear event” in every other paragraph about the WTC demolitions did in his first article mention this PAH connection to multiple myeloma–then dropped it in all subsequent writings.

            http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/nuke-cancer-from-911-revealed/ From Cancer Compass: “Some research suggests that there are certain multiple myeloma risk factors increase a person’s chance of getting multiple myeloma. Farmers and petroleum workers exposed to certain chemicals also seem to have a higher-than-average chance of getting multiple myeloma. In addition, people exposed to large amounts of radiation (such as survivors of the atomic bomb explosions in Japan) have an increased risk for this disease.”

            1. “What explains high levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon gases?” – I found this:

              http://www.pnas.org/content/101/32/11685.full
              ?an estimated 100,000 tons of organic debris, 490,000 liters of transformer oil, 380,000 liters of heating and diesel oil, and fuel from several thousand automobiles (stored in subterranean structures of the WTC) (4–6). Soot from the fires contained numerous carcinogens, notably polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are ubiquitous products of incomplete combustion. Even after the fires were extinguished, PAHs were generated by diesel trucks, cranes, generators, and construction equipment that were used to clear 1,500 million kg of rubble”

              1. UTU,

                Before the Bentham (nano-thermite) paper was published, did you catch the ‘explanation’ for “rapid sulfidation and oxidation [of WTC steel samples reported in FEMA Appendix C “Limited Metallurgical Examination”] to high heat and contact with gypsum board?

                The Jones/Harrit work suggests large amounts of thermitics were used. A few of Chandler’s YouTube videos note continuing combustion outside the Twin Towers and we might imagine that some of the thermitic compounds continued to combust, off-gassing a toxic brew of PAH’s.

                1. I am not familiar with this issue. But certainly a possibility of continuing thermitic reaction after the demolition should be considered.

                  Say,that thermite was used. We do not know what kind of thermite and what were its constituents. Would they produce PAH when burnt? Maybe, but we do not know. If they did, how much of PAH would be expected? We do not know because we do not know how much thermite was burning and how much PAH producing constituent was in the thermite. But at the same time we know that PAH is produced by burning fuel, by diesel exhaust, by burning plastics, by burning chemicals found in transformers… By talking about PAH as an evidence of thermite is like barking at forest and saying that one is really barking at the birch tree. But we do not really know that a single birch tree is in this forest.

                2. and we might imagine that some of the thermitic compounds continued to combust, off-gassing a toxic brew of PAH’s
                  You might imagine anything you wish. I hear a vivid imagination is appreciated by many people.

                    1. “Imagine” was quite alright, as your hypothesis is not informed by any observation or previously established theory. You basically appeal to magic: You imagine that there is a magic potion (thermite) that can have any property you wish it to have (such as “can off-gas a toxic brew of PAH’s”). Reality is that you do not actually know that “thermitic compounds” were present, nor that “thermitic compounds” could be expected to have this property.
                      You are imagining this. Scientists don’t call it “hypothesizing” when they make up stuff from nothing.

            2. Determining the actual chemical composition of the red-gray chips can involve working backwards from gaseous byproducts of the combustion. PAHs were found IN ABUNDANCE by the EPA at ground zero.
              You are assuming that the PAHs found at GZ came from combustion of the red-gray chips – when there were so many other things smouldering in the piles.
              Yes, capturing and analysing the gasous products of the chip combustion might have been a smart move, but you are already proposing a conclusion supported by no extant evidence.

  21. 5. Flame/Ignition Tests
    The DSC used in our studies does not allow for visual inspection of the energetic reaction. Therefore tests were also performed with a small oxyacetylene flame applied to red/gray chips. Samples were either heated on a graphite block (Fig. 22) or held with tweezers in the flame. Several paint samples were also tested and in each case, the paint sample was immediately reduced to fragile ashes by the hot flame. This was not the case, however, with any of the red/gray chips from the World Trade Center dust.
    The first WTC red/gray chip so tested was approximately
    1mm 1mm. After a few seconds of heating, the high-speed ejection of a hot particle was observed under the hand of the person holding the torch (Fig. 22). The intense light and bright orange color of the particle attest to its high temperature.
    In this case, the attempt to recover the diminutive end product of the reaction was unsuccessful. A short video clip of the test (including slow-motion) is available here:
    http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/oxy_redchip_slow.mov

    http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf
    \\][//

    1. Thanks, HR1, for confirming with the lengthy quote that indeed your claim was wrong that “the chip was ignited by an electrical charge“.

      1. The chip was ignited by an electrical charge in the DSC, but did not allow for visual observation in that case.

        Now Schmidt, I want you to come out with it – do you think that your commentary here is successfully debunking the Jones-Harrit paper? Is that what you are up to? Do you think you are being successful in this attempt?
        I think you are attempting misdirection here. Does that surprise you?
        \\][//

        1. The chip was ignited by an electrical charge in the DSC
          No, complete nonsense. You invented this – you must know that you just invented this falsehood. HR1, are you really lying?!

          “Do you think that your commentary here is successfully debunking the Jones-Harrit paper?”
          You utterly – UTTERLY! – fail to even address my arguments. You tell false claim after false claim, wrongness upon wrongness, error concatenated to error. Are you doing this consciously? Or are you really so utterly ignorant of the topic you attempt, but badly fail, to debate? You don’t understand the science in Harrit et al, do you?

          Yes, my arguments disproving Harrit’s conclusions are valid – my premises are true, my reasoning solid. You can’t and don’t hold a candle to this, sorry.

          I think YOU are attempting misdirection here – I have no other explanation for your continued inventions of FALSE claims such as the one on “ignited by an electrical charge”.

          1. “The chip was ignited by an electrical charge in the DSC”
            No, complete nonsense. You invented this – you must know that you just invented this falsehood. HR1, are you really lying?!”~Schmidt

            How else do you propose that the chips were ignited in a DSC? They certainly wouldn’t use a blowtorch now would they?
            Explain an alternative to electrical heating while the chip is in the DSC.
            \\][//

              1. Note the energy release by mass of WTC Chips 3 & 4 compared to the monomolecular explosives. It would require much less volume to achieve the explosive energies by the sol-gel products. This is why claims of debunkers as to the volume of explosives used would be prohibitive is nonsense. It would clearly take less volume of sol-gels to achieve the explosive power than the standard explosives.
                \\][//

                1. “It would require much less volume to achieve the explosive energies by the sol-gel products.”

                  a) what sol-gel products? I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products! This is a made-up fantasy to equate the red-gray chips with sol-gel energetic materials! You continue to peddle mere imagination, zero fact! Please do not fail to address this admonition! Please do not commit again the fallacious claim that the chips are products if a sol-gel process unless you provide evidence – which doesn’t exist! Please admit in your own words that you understand that your implied assertion of chips=sol-gel has no, zero, evidence to support!

                  b) The “energetic” red layer of the red-gray chips is mostly organic binder with a low density (would be near 1 g/cm^3 as opposed to thermite’s ca. 4 g/cm^3). IF the red material was the “explosive sol-gel” that you fantasize about, it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives. But of course there is ZERO evidence that the red-gray chips are explosive – that is a fantasy!

                  Man, HR1, don’t you notice that almost EVERYTHING you write here is factually FALSE? There is a very strong pattern.

                  1. “I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products!”~Schmidt

                    Yes you have. And I don’t believe you.

                    “it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives.”~Schmidt

                    Not according to the chart, of course “roughly” can be interpreted as a weasel word in this instant.
                    \\][//

                    1. “I have told you several times already: Harrit et al provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the red/gray chips are “sol-gel” products!”~Schmidt
                      Yes you have. And I don’t believe you.

                      You don’t believe me you don’t have evidence?? Uhm okay…
                      Then it should be easy to present/point to/quote that evidence🙂
                      A few hints to guide you:
                      – What tests or criteria would show whether a material is sol-gel?
                      – Have Harrit et al applied those tests or criteria?
                      – What were the results?
                      I think that, if and when you think about this, you will find that you not, in fact, have any such evidence.
                      I furthermore think that you don’t even know what a sol-gel is, and how to spot evidence for it.

                      “it would require roughly the same volume as all the other organic explosives.”~Schmidt
                      Not according to the chart, of course “roughly” can be interpreted as a weasel word in this instant.

                      The chart that you reproduced simply showed the theoretical values for generic Al/Fe2O3 thermite – regardless of particle size or mixing process, as you can verify by looking at Figure 1 of the reference [21] they took that graphic from. This has nothing to do with sol-gel, the authors start talking about sol.gel as a proposed process after that.
                      Generic thermite would be a mixture of only Fe2O3 and Al in appropriate proportions, without any binder whatsoever, without silicon compounds, too, of course.
                      But the chips DO contain organic binder – in fact there is a LOT of organic binder surrounding the pigments. Much more organic binder by volume than iron oxide grains and Si-Al-O-platelets, and probably even more organic binder by weight. The organic polymer would be MUCH less dense than thermite. This greatly indluences the density of the composite red material, such that the energy density per volume drops by a factor that’s certainly somewhere around 2-3. Perhaps I am being generous here. The graphic suggests that the density of thermite is about 4 g/cm^3, which seems about right. The red material quite certainly does not exceed 1.5 g/cm^3. I can do the math to support my estimate, if you don’t believe me.

            1. “How else do you propose that the chips were ignited in a DSC?”
              So you confabulate as you go. Like an alcoholic who wakes up on the park bench and concludes it must have been aliens that got him there. Aren’t you ashamed? You have some personality disorder or a character flaw. It shows in you lies but also in the tone of your voice. And Schmidt is right that you have you have no clue how science work and how to conduct scientific discourse. Do you know what DSC is? How does it work? What is its purpose making DSC trace? Actually, what are you doing here? Are you a troll or is it your hobby that you really do not understand?

              1. “Do you know what DSC is? How does it work? What is its purpose making DSC trace?”~utu

                Yes I do you know what DSC is. It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC.
                One sample is heated, while the control sample is not. The DSC trace determines the heat flow through the heated sample in comparison to the unheated sample.

                More or less heat will need to flow to it than the reference to maintain both at the same temperature. Whether less or more heat must flow to the sample depends on whether the process is exothermic or endothermic. For example, as a solid sample melts to a liquid it will require more heat flowing to the sample to increase its temperature at the same rate as the reference. This is due to the absorption of heat by the sample as it undergoes the endothermic phase transition from solid to liquid. Likewise, as the sample undergoes exothermic processes (such as crystallization) less heat is required to raise the sample temperature. By observing the difference in heat flow between the sample and reference, differential scanning calorimeters are able to measure the amount of heat absorbed or released during such transitions.
                \\][//

                1. “Do you know what DSC is? How does it work? What is its purpose making DSC trace?”~utu
                  Yes I do you know what DSC is.

                  No, hybridrogue1, you just proved once and for all that you truly do NOT know, much less understand, how a DSC works. See, you copy&pasted most of your post from Wikipedia without marking that as a quote, without credit and link. You sneaky one! You come across as a bit dishonest there! Those WP sentences of course are quite okay. All the rest, what you wrote yourself, is essentially WRONG – again, and that shows clearly as day that you have not the first clue.

                  What HR1 wrote:
                  It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC.
                  That is correct. Wow.

                  One sample is heated, while the control sample is not. The DSC trace determines the heat flow through the heated sample in comparison to the unheated sample.
                  And this is flat-out WRONG: The reference sample of course is heated, too. Why didn’t you read the WP article you stole from for comprehension?

                  HR1 c&p’ed from WP:
                  More or less heat will need to flow to it than the reference to maintain both at the same temperature. Whether less or more heat must flow to the sample depends on whether the process is exothermic or endothermic. For example, as a solid sample melts to a liquid it will require more heat flowing to the sample to increase its temperature at the same rate as the reference. This is due to the absorption of heat by the sample as it undergoes the endothermic phase transition from solid to liquid. Likewise, as the sample undergoes exothermic processes (such as crystallization) less heat is required to raise the sample temperature. By observing the difference in heat flow between the sample and reference, differential scanning calorimeters are able to measure the amount of heat absorbed or released during such transitions.
                  This, the remainder of your post, is stolen from WP without any citation. BIG no-no😉 And you wonder why you get no respect here?

                  Man up and admit that you committed several grave errors of fact already, that you are clueless and need for someone competent to explain the entire Harrit et al paper to you.
                  Admit that, for the last 6 years, you have believed Harrit and Jones as well as Ryan and Legge on faith alone, because you lack the comprehension to judge their work.

                  And open up to the possibility that perhaps Harrit and Jones can be wrong, too. Or liars. It’s the scientific stance to take.

              2. Now Utu,

                As to your emotional outburst here in your latest comment; I suggest restraint. I am not so easily pissed off as some might imagine. However, I will not be harangued in this fashion one more time without giving you a piece of my mind.

                Is that understood hotshot?
                \\][//

            2. How else do you propose that the chips were ignited in a DSC? They certainly wouldn’t use a blowtorch now would they?
              Explain an alternative to electrical heating while the chip is in the DSC

              Ah I see now – you have not the first clue what a DSC does, and difficulties understanding how things react when heated, We have to start from zero with you.

              FIrst and quickly: you wrote that the samples were “ignited” by an “electrical charge”. It wasn”t an electrical “charge” as such that ignited the samples. Rather, the heating plates of the DSC are powered by electricity. The proximate cause for the chips to ignite was heat (the infusion of energy by influx of a higher temperature), not electrical charge. Do you know, and understand, what the proper scientific meaning is of “electric charge”? If not, look it up at WP. You should understand that you can speak of an electric charge if and when an object has an excess or lack of electrons. Shile the heating plates are powered by electricity, they at no point experience a net positive or negative charge. That’s why your claim was wrong entirely. But I see now that perhaps through your lack of understanding of physics you somehow meant something correct, while using incorrect language.

              A DSC is a device where you subject two samples to a defined temperature regime: One sample is the substance you are studying, the other is a known, ideally inert reference material. The temperature regime could for example be to heat the sampled slowly to 400 °C and then cool them slowly back to room temp. You can vary the heating and cooling rates, sometimes you have more than one heating circle, etc., depends on what you are studying, The regime that Harrit et al programmed (the guy actually carrying out this DSC experiment was Jeff Farrer, who explained in an interview how he first learned how to operate a DSC on that occasion – that’s how unexperienced that team was, they had never ever before worked with a DSC!) was slow heating at a rate of 10 °C per minute from room temperature (~20 °C) to 700 °C (note that this is often misconstrued as Farrer heating the chips to only 425 °C). Since that is a time differential of about 680 °C, you see that each run took about 68 minutes.
              The trick that makes DSC what it is (a “Differential Scanning Calorimeter”) is that it measures the energy input required to maintain the heating rate for both the inert reference sample and the specimen you are studying. Some reactions (physical as well as chemical) consume energy – for example, the vaporization (boiling) of water consumes a lot energy while temperature remains practically constant. To maintain a heating rate, the DSC must suddenly apply a LOT of additional energy to quickly boil of the water at 100 °C. Had the chips contained water, it would have shown as a very marked downward “peak” at 100 °C. If on the other hand the sample ignites and an exotherm reaction occurs, then the DSC device doesn’t need to input as much heat to maintain a temperature rise – this shows as the plotted line in the DSC graph going up.

              There are several things that can go on in materials that cause DSC curves to go up or down:
              melting/freezing
              vaporizing/condensing
              phase transitions (from crystalline to amorphous or vice versa; from one crytsal structure to another)
              chemical synthesis (e.g. oxidation – for example burning on air)
              chemical decomposition (e.g. reduction of oxides, or the slow destruction of polymers into smaller molecules, such as CO2 gas or char and soot (elemental carbon))
              There are more.

              When you heat a paint sample, reactions that might occur might be, perhaps in this order:
              * giving off residual water at 20-100 °C
              * a glass transition of the polymer somewhere between 100 and 400 °C
              * polymer decomposition somwhere between 200 and 450 °C
              * polymer combustion somewhere between 230 and 550 °C (often concurrent with decomposition)
              * various phase transitions within the mineral pigments over a vast possible temperature range
              * reduction of minerals at higher temperatures
              * melting of any components possible over a large temperature range

              Having this in mind, you can’t reduce the discussion of DSC curves to observing that there is a peak somewhere, and that’s it. You also want to look at all the smaller characteristics – the wobbles, the secondary peaks and troughs, the point where the slopes begin to rise above or sink below 0, etc etc etc. Harrit et al haven’t done any of this analysis. Their four samples differe in many of these characteristics. For example, the green and black curve drop below 0 between 540 and 700 °C., while the red and blue curve remain close to 0 there. The red and blue curve have local maxima near 390 °C and local minima near 410 °C before raising to their global maxima near 430 to 440 °C – the green and black curves have smooth slopes there. These differences in observations are best explained as the “green” and “black” chips being a material different from the “red” and “blue” curve chips. The red curve alone has another local maximum a bit beyond 450 °C – the red and blue chips may be similiar but are not same. Harrit et al missed all this.

              Anyway, to cut back to your question:
              Do you understand now that the chips were slowly (taking >1 hour) heated on little stove plates from room temperature to 700 °C, that this heating (increase in temperature; not electric charge) caused several reactions during that time, chief among them was ignition and organic combustion of the binder on air (exotherm chemical reaction) which started (“ignited”) well below 400 °C for the green and black curves, and peaked at 425 °C (green, black) to 440 °C (red, blue)?

              1. Mr Schmidt,

                Yes I see you are correct, I misinterpreted how the phase change is detected. Also I took a portion of that Wiki article which is posted -WITH CITATION on my blog, and failed to carry over the quotation marks. The second part a simple oversight. The first part an error of my on misunderstanding of the way the DSC device works. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

                We nevertheless have the results from that experiment. Do you dispute those as well?
                If so explain.
                \\][//

                1. You’re welcome, and I appreciate your clearing this up.

                  We nevertheless have the results from that experiment. Do you dispute those as well?
                  If so explain.

                  That experiment; The DSC test on four red-gray chip specimens, about which we know very little else:
                  – They were selected from three of the four dust samples provided to Jones by private citizens of NYC: MacInlay (2 specimens), Intermont and White
                  – They were attracted to a permanent magnet
                  – They visually had a red and a grey layer
                  We do not know their elemental composition, and we have no micrographs (neither optical nor from electron microscopy). We do not know how they would have behaved if soaked in MEK. We do not know what their resistivity is, and we do not know if the residues of any of these four chips appears in the remainder of the paper (such as Figures 20, 21, 25), and of so, which residue corresponds to which DSC curve.

                  The results are as follows:
                  – Figure 19, showing four DSC traces (green, black, red and blue)
                  – From these curves, Harrit et al determined specific energy yields of 7.5, 6, 3 and 1.5 kJ/g (for the green, black, red and blue curve, respectively)

                  I do not despute these results at all. I accept them in their entirety.

                  In their discussion, Harrit et al explain that the variation of the specific energies must in significant part be due to variations in the relative mass of the gray layer:
                  Variations in
                  peak height as well as yield estimates are not surprising,
                  since the mass used to determine the scale of the signal,
                  shown in the DSC traces, included the mass of the gray
                  layer. The gray layer was found to consist mostly of iron
                  oxide so that it probably does not contribute to the exotherm,
                  and yet this layer varies greatly in mass from chip to chip.

                  I find this entirely plausible: The gray layer would indeed be almost completely iron oxide, with very little potential of further oxidation. It might conceivably contribute a little to the exotherm, either through phase transitions, or by oxidizing Fe3O4 further to Fe2O3. But either process would be small in effect compared to the exotherm of organic combustion.

                  They write that
                  In the post-DSC residue, charred-porous material and
                  numerous microspheres and spheroids were observed. Many
                  of these were analyzed, and it was found that some were
                  iron-rich, which appear shiny and silvery in the optical microscope

                  I accept this a true as well, but would like to note that this is not specifically a result of the DSC test, but more generally of heating the chips to 700 °C (or more, as in the flame test) and burning them in the process. It is entirely unnecessary to do a DSC run to get some form of this result.

                  Further below (page 28), they write this interpretation of the DSC plot:
                  the DSC tests demonstrate
                  the release of high enthalpy, actually exceeding that of
                  pure thermite.

                  This is correct.

                  What I disagree with are the following statements:
                  Furthermore, the energy is released over a
                  short period of time, shown by the narrowness of the peak in
                  Fig. (29).

                  This is FALSE. As I pointed out, the DSC temperature was slowly raised at a rate of 10 °C/min, such that a difference of 10 °C plotted along the x-axis in Figures 19 and 29 corresponds to 60 seconds, 1 °C to 6 seconds. That the peaks appear “narrow” is an artefact of the chosen scales.
                  Tillotson’s nanothermite (Fig. 29) peaked at about 5 W/g. If you look at Fig 19, you’ll see that the black, green, red and blue curves first reach and exceed 5 W/g at 377, 382, 423, and 432 °C, and stay above 5 W/g until 455, 462, 462 and 450 °C, respectively. The four curves thus stay at that specific power for 78, 80, 39 and 18 °C, which corresponds to 468, 480, 234 and 108 seconds, respectively.
                  In short, the “short period of time” is actually between almost 2 minutes and 8 minutes! And that’s only counting the part of the exotherm where specific power exceeds that of Tillotson’s reference. All four peaks are actually quite a bit wider than that – the green peak starts at just over 200 °C and goes to about 545 °C, and interval that took 34 minutes! That is most decisively NOT a “short time”. The narrowest peak is the blue one, starting at about 420 °C and ending at about 478 °C, which took 5.8 minutes. Short time??? Either Harrit et al are spectacularly incompetent at reading DSC traces, or they are consciously deceptive.

                  They repeat the same mistake / deception when they write:
                  The red material does burn quickly as shown in the DSC

                  Among the 10 conclusions, I agree with #10:
                  The carbon content of the red material indicates that
                  an organic substance is present. […]
                  The nature of the organic material
                  in these chips merits further exploration. We note
                  that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the
                  total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests
                  exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic
                  thermite reaction.

                  And I would like to add that the organic material most definitely is “energetic” – as any ordinaty paint binder would be, for example. I left out this part from #10, which I disagree with in that it is mere speculation not actually supported by the evidence:
                  This [organic substance present] would be expected
                  for super-thermite formulations in order to
                  produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus
                  make them explosive.

                  It would also be expected for many other materials for many other reasons. Most notably it would be expected in red primer paint, which most of the chips without a doubt are.

                  Consequently, I reject assertions like this:
                  If a paint were devised that incorporated these very
                  energetic materials, it would be highly dangerous when dry
                  and most unlikely to receive regulatory approval for building
                  use.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.
                  ” (page 28).
                  Complete nonsense. Primer paints DO contain flammable organic binders that most definitely release more heat than thermite when burning! This is no problem, as the paint layer is only 25 to 50 micrometers thin – compared to the thickness of steel members that are upward of 1/4 inch = 6250 micrometers thick, that’s negligible. It is not difficult to calculate that a steel member would warm up by only a few degrees if the paint (or a corresponding thermite layer) were to burn completely. Since the paint doesn’t ignite before the steel is already beyond 250 or 400 °C, the problem then is not the paint.

                  Conclusion 7 focusses on the DSC results, and it is all wrong:
                  As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts
                  vigorously at a temperature of approximately
                  430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching
                  fairly closely an independent observation on a known
                  super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition
                  and the presence of iron oxide grains less than
                  120 nm show that the material is not conventional
                  thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C)
                  but very likely a form of super-thermite.

                  WRONG: The DSC results do NOT indicate a “vigorous” reaction.
                  WRONG: The chips do not all ignite at ~430 °C – the green and black curves are already reacting under 380 °C.
                  WRONG: the blue curve in Figures 19 and 29 does not match the red curve in Fig. 29 (“a known super-thermite sample”) – practically every characteristic is different: peak temperature differs by almost 100 °C, peak power by a factor of 2, the chip doesn’t have the thermites endotherm between 30 and 310 °C and above 560 °C, the red curve is missing several local minima and maxima of the blue curve. Again: Either Harrit et al are spectacularly incompetent at reading DSC traces, or they are consciously deceptive.
                  WRONG: The low temperature of ignition says nothing about any thermite reaction, as it first and foremost, and almost certainly exclusively, is a property of the organic binder.
                  WRONG: The “presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is … very likely a form of super-thermite” – 120 nm grains of iron oxide are extremely well known to any competent forensic expert, but apparently completely unknown to the forensic amateurs Harrit et al – the common name is “red iron oxide pigments”. They are a low tech product. They cost about half a dollar per pound and have been the main red inorganic pigment in the world for everything including steel primer for ever and ever.

                  It is hard to believe this astounding density of wrongness can be the result of an honest scientific inquiry by competent researchers.

                  1. So the bottom line here Schmidt, is that you are claiming that the red-gray chips are nothing but “primer – paint”. The same tired assertions made by Millette, the JREF crowd, and the so-called “Skeptics”. I acknowledge that you make an argumentum verbosium – an argument of intimidation here. You have every right to your “professional opinion”. There are however many physicists and chemists that disagree with you.

                    If you are so confident in your theories here, why don’t you write a paper on this and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. You surely have done papers that have been peer reviewed before {?} You should know the procedure well enough.

                    You could make quite a name for yourself in the literature of 9/11 by successfully rebuking the Jones-Harrit paper. Perhaps you are wasting your precious time here arguing with us “ignorant plebes” … aye?

                    Good luck with that.
                    \\][//

                    1. So the bottom line here Schmidt, is that you are claiming that the red-gray chips are nothing but “primer – paint”. The same tired assertions made by Millette, the JREF crowd, and the so-called “Skeptics”.
                      Yes. That’s where the evidence is pointing.

                      I acknowledge that you make an argumentum verbosium – an argument of intimidation here. You have every right to your “professional opinion”. There are however many physicists and chemists that disagree with you.
                      No. My argument is not needlessly verbose. You are needlessly verbose when you post lengthy quotes without any argument of your own.
                      Appeal to authority fallacy.
                      You are unable to refute any of my arguments on their own merits.

                      If you are so confident in your theories here, why don’t you write a paper on this and get it published in a peer reviewed journal. You surely have done papers that have been peer reviewed before {?} You should know the procedure well enough.
                      No, I have never published any scientific paper.

                      You could make quite a name for yourself in the literature of 9/11 by successfully rebuking the Jones-Harrit paper. Perhaps you are wasting your precious time here arguing with us “ignorant plebes” … aye?
                      Perhaps.

                    2. “No. My argument is not needlessly verbose.”~Schmidt

                      They are if they are “scientific” psychobabble. That is exactly what I think you are offering here; complex argumentation that is simply meant to confuse. I don’t buy it. I won’t buy it until you produce a peer reviewed paper of your own.

                      Your argument comes down to Jones & Harrit are liars. They obviously are not stupid, they couldn’t have made such egregious and silly mistakes as you posit. So the only conclusion we can come to is that you are calling them liars. Both of these men have long and illustrious scientific careers, with hundreds of peer reviewed articles under their belt. I find it absolutely preposterous to assert they would take the chance of ruining their own unblemished reputations in the manner you propose.
                      \\][//

                    3. They are if they are “scientific” psychobabble.
                      Well good. They are NOT “psychobabble”. So relax🙂

                      That is exactly what I think you are offering here; complex argumentation that is simply meant to confuse.
                      If that’s what you think, then you are (again) plainly in error. The topics are somewhat complex to a layperson, sure, but I do my best to explain to that level.

                      I don’t buy it. I won’t buy it until you produce a peer reviewed paper of your own.
                      Do you hold the writings of your friends and heroes to that same standard? If not, why mine? Double standards much?

                      Your argument comes down to Jones & Harrit are liars.
                      No, wrong. You confuse argument and conclusion.
                      And I do not conclude that they are liars. I conclude they are highly incompetent in what they did for that paper OR liars. (Of course, they can also be both at the same time). I have personal hunches about the distribition of incompetence and dishonesty among the authors, but will keep them mostly to myself, as I obviously can’t prove them.

                      They obviously are not stupid, they couldn’t have made such egregious and silly mistakes as you posit.
                      Is that your premise, or are you attempting to paraphrase me with this?
                      Yes, I agree that they are not, in general, stupid.
                      But being intelligent, and being a sharp and competent mind in one field (or perhaps having been sharp and competent in the past) doesn’t always protect you from committing such egregious and silly mistakes.

                      So the only conclusion we can come to is that you are calling them liars.
                      That’s what you say.

                      Both of these men have long and illustrious scientific careers, with hundreds of peer reviewed articles under their belt. I find it absolutely preposterous to assert they would take the chance of ruining their own unblemished reputations in the manner you propose.
                      I am flabbergasted myself and offer no explanation for why smart people might do such things. I do not claim any in-depth understanding of psychology.

                    4. “I don’t buy it. I won’t buy it until you produce a peer reviewed paper of your own.”
                      Do you hold the writings of your friends and heroes to that same standard? If not, why mine? Double standards much?”~Schmidt

                      My determinations are balanced by what I find to be rational arguments as a first priority.However a great many if not a majority of the works I cite are peer reviewed AND they make sense internally as well.

                      Why not yours Jens? I have given my opinion here, I will not beat a dead horse. I will only say that the proposal that the material is primer paint is balderdash.
                      \\][//

                    5. My determinations are balanced by what I find to be rational arguments as a first priority.However a great many if not a majority of the works I cite are peer reviewed AND they make sense internally as well.
                      Bullshit.

                    6. “Bullshit.”~Schmidt

                      Brilliant! That is the best comment you have made all week. Short sweet and stupid. At least it is better than hundreds of words of psychobabble.
                      \\][//

  22. The “debunkers” also conveniently forget to mention that there was also another reviewer who remained anonymous, as noted by one of the authors, Gregg Roberts. Roberts states that the other reviewer “provided a much less rigorous review than did Griscom,” and that this referee also approved of the paper “if the review points were dealt with adequately..” Those “months of further experiments” really paid off because Griscom states that he had “absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!” This statement resulted in Joseph Nobles´s proverbial failure at manifesting a salient retort: “And yet Griscom says that he couldn’t find anything to criticize about the ATM paper! 12 notes of suggestions he has that makes Harrit, et al. sweat and strain to meet (according to Jones), but none of these are criticisms?” The level of Nobles´s reading comprehension is embarrassing, but unfortunately it is typical for the so-called “debunking sites”, such as his ae911truth.info. What Griscom actually said is that he “found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper!” You know, the final version they produced after they made the changes based on the review!

    The journal editor-in-chief caved in to political pressure and resigned after the paper had been published, without actually criticizing the content of the paper. The “debunkers” began their smear-campaign against the journal even before the paper got published, so the resignation has been seen as an opportunity to slander the journal, the paper and it´s authors. The campaign forced another editor to resign and effectively killed the journal for a whole year, but it started to recover after that. These “debunkers” have also attempted to ruin the reputation of the whole family of (over 150) Bentham Open journals because one of those journals published a hoax-paper according to them, and that is supposed to discredit by association the journal that published Harrit´s paper. But the “debunkers” only discredit themselves, because although one of those journals tried to discover the identity of the hoaxers by sending them a letter stating that it would publish the paper if they would just “fill and sign the attached fee form,” there never was any intention to publish. Some “debunkers” still spread the false rumors about these journals publishing hoax-papers and that Harrit´s paper is not reviewed. The dullest specimens also resort to vile personal attacks, as is so perfectly exemplified by Pat Curley from the site Screw Loose Change who calls Dr. Griscom a “sack of fecal matter” and a “Troofer moron.” However, as one of Harrit´s co-authors so accurately noted, all these diversionary claims and ad hominem arguments are “just a way to avoid dealing with what the paper says.” The formal peer-review by Griscom and the other referee was indeed valid and unusually tough, but it did not stop there according to Talboo:

    Jones stated in the comments that “BYU scientists did a review of the paper” that led to changes in the report. Jones previously revealed in comments on anther post that the paper was “peer-reviewed by the Physics dept. chair at BYU…because two of the authors are from this dept.” Elsewhere he revealed that he was told by the chairman that the paper “was sound scientific research and that he was now persuaded that explosives/pyrotechnics were involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11.”
    http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
    \\][//

    1. Griscom is a specialist in the properties of certain amorphous minerals – essentially a geologist.

      He has no experience with forensic material analysis.
      He has no experience with organic polymers
      He has no experience with mineral, crystalline pigments

      It is unclear what expertise Griscom brings to the table to be picked to review a paper by the editor of a “Chemical Physics” journal.

      But wait, there is one bit of experience that makes him a “peer”:
      Griscom is a Truther who had previously published in Jones’ and Ryan’s own “Journal of 9/11 Studies”:
      http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/hand-waving-the%20physics-of-911-by-david-griscom.pdf
      Could this be coincidence?

      The approprietness of the peer-review process and the reputation of the Bentham line of Open Access journals notwithstanding, all of the arguments made about Harrit’s data and conclusions stand on their own merits. Perhaps Griscom found no further fault – I do!

      1. “all of the arguments made about Harrit’s data and conclusions stand on their own merits. Perhaps Griscom found no further fault – I do!”~Schmidt

        Yes it is obvious that you find the conclusions of Harrit’s experiment wrong. However you haven’t made it clear exactly why that is.

        What do you think the red and gray substance is, if it is not a sol-gel energetic?
        \\][//

        1. Yes it is obvious that you find the conclusions of Harrit’s experiment wrong. However you haven’t made it clear exactly why that is.
          See my other, long post a few minutes ago, where I tackled the conclusions about the DSC results. That’s only part of the reason.

          What do you think the red and gray substance is, if it is not a sol-gel energetic?
          First of all, I need you to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless, you have exactly ZERO evidence for this claim. It is also a useless claim. So please tell me verbously why you keep repeating this suggestion? You need to drop it, until you bring evidence (of which there is precisely none)!

          Secondly: There is no data, no observation, that would give grounds to call the chips “explosive”. Do you realize this?
          Having said that, it is true, and trivial. that they are “energetic” – EVERY organic polymer is, and EVERY material based on organic polymers is “energetic”.
          This label “energetic” means nothing more here than that the stuff can burn – your finger nails can burn, and I’d bet they’d release as much energy as those chips. So I could ask you with precisely the same level of legitimacy: Why do you grow sol-gel energetics on your finger tips? You see, the question is slightly moronic.

          So what do I think the red and gray substance is? Easy: It’s paint.

          What Harrit et al either never quite understood, or deceptively ignore, is that they were looking at different chips. The four chips in Figures 6 to 11 are very probably the same material, but the chip they soaked in MEK (Fig 12-18) definitely is a different material. They surely had at least two, perhaps three or four, different materials in the DSC test, and they mention having found several further red-gray substances. I am convinced these simply represent different paint formulations.
          What Harrit et al also had not understood when they published in 2009, and still can’t quite admit today (or draw the correct conclusions from) today is that, of course, there were different paint formulations painted on the WTC steel: The perimeter columns of WTC1+2 are different from the floor joists, the joists certainly different from the core columns, and they all are most probably different from the paints used in WTC7, built about 15 years later, when they were already fading out chromates and lead in paints.

          Harrit et al address the question of paint in their paper, as it was obvious even to them that the chips look an awful lot like paint. I think all arguments in the paper are invalid as they compare unspecified chips to unspecified paints. Since there are several different kinds of chips, and an unknown and vast number of possible paints, all these arguments amount to comparing apples with bananas.

          1. “First of all, I need you to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless”~Schmidt

            No, you actually need to get the larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless.
            \\][//

            1. No, you actually need to get the larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters to realize that the assertion, suggestion, implication that the chips are “sol-gel” is completely groundless.
              There is no “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters”. The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.

              1. Jens Schmidt said:

                “The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel”

                Thank you for the link to that “scientific investigation”, Schmidt.

              2. “The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.”~Schmidt

                The only “scientific investigation” that I am aware of is the Millette attempt, which was never completed and never published in a scientific journal.

                Why didn’t you mention Millette by name?

                Shall I surmise? Oh please allow me to:

                It is because Millette has been soundly rebuked — he did NOT follow the proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper. He did NOT publish. The only place his “preliminary findings” were “published” was on the now defunct (and defuck’t) JREF forums, which as we all know is the farthest thing one can get from a peer reviewed journal.

                So are you going to plead ignorance of James Millet now Jens?
                \\][//

                1. The only “scientific investigation” that I am aware of is the Millette attempt, which was never completed and never published in a scientific journal.
                  This is all correct.
                  But his work was a “scientific investigation”, wasn’t it?
                  If you wish to discard Millette’s study based on those criteria (not completed; never published in a scientific journal), then I think you will agree that “the larger scientific community” has actually NOT “been investigating these matters” AT ALL. Correct? Or can you point me to any other scientific investigation of the red-gray chips that was completed and published? Then please do! Otherwise, please retract the FALSE insinuation that there is a “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters” and admit you made that up.

                  Millette has been soundly rebuked
                  No.

                  he did NOT follow the proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper
                  You don’t understand that there is no “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper”. They didn’t have a protocol. They just did random things that popped into their minds. It was a bad study, badly presented. It was the work of amateurs in that field.
                  Millette is an actual forensic scientist with loads of expertise in exactly this kind of research.

                  But if you must: What IS the “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper” – can you please summarize it?

                  He did NOT publish.
                  So what? His entire data was made publicly available, plus his preliminary findings.
                  Harrit et al are holding back lots of data.

                  So are you going to plead ignorance of James Millet now Jens?
                  Silly. I knew you knew what I was talking about.

                  And again, you are ubable to refute my true assertion:
                  “The only scientific investigation that I am aware of that has followed up the Harrit et al paper has found that the chips are paint, not sol-gel.”
                  Millette’s study IS the only follow-up on Harrit et al out there,
                  And it found that the chips are ordinary paint.
                  And you haven’t even attempted to hold a candle to that.

      2. “I learned a term for a credentialed person’s bamboozling of the uninitiated. It’s called “proof by intimidation.”~ David L Griscom
        Ph.D. in Physics, Brown University, 1966. Fellow, American Physical Society.

        \\][//

        1. I like that! Print it out and keep it handy, so you can read it the next time someone tries to bamboozle an “uninitiated” doubter of the good Dr.s Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Legge by clubing them, with alleged credentials, titles and such stuff.

        2. I have known of and encountered Argumentum verbosium for a long time Schmidt,

          You are not the first and surely not the last to apply it.
          \\][//

  23. “The authors also know that the active red/gray chips are as powerful as one known variant of super-thermite, because they compare the exothermic DSC curves to the result in a paper on a sol-gel nano-thermite: The red/gray chips display DSC curves that are as narrow or even narrower than the compared sample, despite the burden of an inert gray layer (see fig. 29 below). According to Dr. Farrer (PhD, Physics), “that was really a turning point for the red/gray chips for me because we got a peak on the calorimeter which shows that these red/gray chips were energetic. They were very exothermic and the width of the peak was also significant; it showed the power that the chips had. The significance of the calorimeter cannot be understated here: The calorimeter can’t lie to you. If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic. The degree of its energy is determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak.” According to Harrit´s paper, the tested samples of paint displayed a completely different behavior in the DSC: As Farrer states in the interview, “[y]ou may get a minor exothermic peak but it is not energetic. It is a very smooth wide peak and it is certainly not an energetic material..”

    http://aneta.org/markbasile_org/study/
    http://www1.ae911truth.org/fr/nouvelles/41-articles/439-jeff-farrer-phd.html
    \\][//

    1. Dear Lord – can’t you at least comment the lengthy quotes? So that I can assess whether you even understand what you are quoting?
      I have already addresses everything that’s contained in that quote!

      Yes, the organic binder is energetic! So are your fingernail clippings and your bourbon whisky. So what?
      No. the chips are not “as powerful as one known variant of super-thermite” – they are a lot MORE powerful in the DSC test! And it doesn’t matter!
      No, the alleged “narrowness” of the peaks is not significant! They are not narrow, and it wouldn’t matter if they were! These people are totally inept at interpreting DSC charts!
      No, the “degree of its energy is” NOT”determined by the height of the peak and the power at which it goes off is the width of the peak.” This is garbled nonsense, uttered by a DSC amateur!
      No, it is FALSE to claim that “according to Harrit´s paper, the tested samples of paint displayed a completely different behavior in the DSC” – there is no such data in the Harrit et al paper, and nowhere in the paper does the word “paint” appear in the context of it being tested by DSC! These amateurs LIE to you, hybridrogue, and you gullibly believe all these falsehoods, because you are incapable of assessing their claims!

      Don’t quote text that you do not understand!

      1. Tell you what Schmidt, get yourself some primer paint; heat it, cook it, flame it, do anything you want to it. And then show us the production of iron microspheres that result from this simple little experiment.
        \\][//

        1. Tell you what Schmidt, get yourself some primer paint; heat it, cook it, flame it, do anything you want to it. And then show us the production of iron microspheres that result from this simple little experiment.
          Moving goal posts again, HG1?
          You can’t refute any of my arguments.
          Actually, I am rather shure that the iron-rich microsheres largely don’t come from burning the primer but from heating the oxidized steel flakes (the gray layer). But that is a little speculation on my part.

          Problem is that the Harrit et al paper is in large parts bogus. Their conclusions do not follow from their data and are in significant part contradicted by their own data. Their claims are not made out, and so the burden of evidence still rests on them.

      2. I don’t know much about solgel, DSC, SEM/XEDS, Al/Fe2O3, don’t know about physics and chemistry beyond my high school advanced physics and chemistry classes, and I can barely differentiate between paint chips and potato chips under a microscope.

        But I have over five decades of hands-on, intensive, field-tested experience in clinical level douchebaggery…

        So, I ask you, Jens Schmidt. Why do you have to be such a giant douchebag when you are arguing your points? Does it help you feel good about yourself? I mean, we all get that you know your “science”, but what is it with the hyper-obnoxious language? Is it compensating for something you otherwise lack? Or is there a much deeper motive and/or meaning to the intense drama you are staging while you illuminate us with your knowledge?

        Thank you for the facts and knowledge you are sharing… But, screw you for your demeanor while you are doing it!!!

  24. To: Jens Schmidt

    I found 2011 article by Wang et al. “Thermal stability and reaction properties of passivated
    Al/CuO nano-thermite” at https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advanced-materials-joining/sites/ca.centre-advanced-materials-joining/files/uploads/files/nanothermite_jpcs.pdf

    I think it is worth studying. They analyze DSC trace. Also they discuss the concern I brought up in the previous comment to you about oxide passivation layer formed on nano-particles of Al:

    “On the other
    hand, due to the active reactivity of aluminum nanoparticles (Al
    NPs) in air, a thin aluminum oxide passivation layer with a
    thickness of a few nanometers can quickly form on particles’
    surface. This characteristic is troublesome for two reasons. First,
    the content of pure aluminum in the nanoparticle is significantly
    reduced (e.g., for a 25 nm nanoparticle, a 3 nm oxide shell
    accounts for460% of the volume of the Al NP). Second, the
    aluminum oxide shell can act as an encapsulation for the core
    aluminum and thus endures a compressive pressure that hinders
    the reactivity of the Al NPs [4].”

    Anyway, it’s interesting to read because they also talk about protective counting on nanoparticles to prevent oxidation. They passivated nano-particles with nitrocellulose.

    Also they mention that the ignition point is above the melting point of Al. This means that DSC trace will not tell us nothing about the thermitic reaction unless the DSC scan is run very rapidly like 10^5 K/s. This means that one can melt aluminum in thermite without igniting the thermite though the passivation layer and some other organic compounds (binder?) will burn. Once Al is melted only partial thermitic reaction may occur without a benefit of surface to volume ratio of nano-particles.

    Would Wang or any of his coauthors would be willing to comment on Harrit et al. paper?

    1. Thanks for linking that paper. I don’t have a mind and the time to study it in depth at this time. I am aware of proposals to coat nano-Al particles with other agents to improve performance in thermite fornulations, and that is interesting in its own right. But I don’t think it’s relevant here as long as Harrit et al, or any follow-up research, can’t and don’t show the alleged but elusive nano-Al in the chips.

      Would Wang or any of his coauthors would be willing to comment on Harrit et al. paper?
      That would be interesting; and no doubt they could say a LOT about it. Try it! I am a little shy with such things, I feel like I am bothering strangers and steeling their time while have nothing to offer in return.

  25. to Jens Schmidt

    Here http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA320678
    one can download pdf of report “Thermal Analysis of Some Propellants and Explosives with DSC and TG/DTA” by PRINS MAURITS LABORATORIUM TNO RIJSWIJK (NETHERLANDS)

    Descriptors : *EXPLOSIVES, *PROPELLANTS, *THERMAL ANALYSIS, *CALORIMETRY, *THERMOGRAVIMETRIC ANALYSIS, SCANNING, THERMAL PROPERTIES, NETHERLANDS, PARAMETERS, POLYMERS, ENTHALPY, WEIGHT REDUCTION, DUTCH LANGUAGE, SPECIFIC HEAT, DIFFERENTIAL THERMAL ANALYSIS.

    There are lot’s of DSC scans of various explosives. My impression is that DSC scans are NOT made to measure explosive properties like actual energy density or reaction speed but they are done to study stability of the materials and what phase transition they undergo at different temperatures.

    So I agree with you on what you wrote to HR1 that Harrit et al. did not show anything about the explosive properties of the material they were studying. Cited statements by HR1 on height and width of the DSC peak are totally misleading. They have nothing to do with the explosive properties of thermite.

    Only the existence of the micro spheres that were iron rich may but doesn’t have to point to a thermitic reaction and a high school level test of observing micro flash when setting the flake on fire with a bunsen burner may but doesn’t have to indicate that there was elemental Al that got oxidized producing a flash.

    In conclusion the paper by Harrit et al. appears to me to be very weak. The strongest point that the paper implies is its claim that man made explosives were found in the debris. That the explosive were supposed to be thermite was of secondary value. If they found residuals unambiguously pointing to the presence of say, RDX it would be just the same or even better. I have noticed that in minds of many the thermite acquired extraordinary and mythical properties. This is because we do not know that much of its properties, so all claims that thermite could for example toss several tons columns at 50 mph are just pure unwarranted suppositions. If Harrit et al. really discovered thermite (personally I have strong doubts) it is useful only as an argument that demolition explosives including thermite were used to bring towers down.

    1. Another interesting paper – thanks again, utu!

      My impression is that DSC scans are NOT made to measure explosive properties like actual energy density or reaction speed but they are done to study stability of the materials and what phase transition they undergo at different temperatures.
      Hehe yes, of course your impression is correct! DSC is rarely used to study chemical reaction. There is a certain slowlness and inertia inherent to the method that makes it difficult. In a nutshell, you can’t explose an explosive slowly and at a well-controlled temperature😉

      Perhaps the greatest value of this paper is that it shows for all these explosives and propellants that they decompose at temperatures mostly under 300 °C. This underscores what Dutch explosive demoltition expert Danny Jowenko explained when interviewed by the TV program Zemla in 2006 or so: That the twin towers could not possibly have been demolished with explosives: the collapses started within the fire zone, where the heat of the fires would have destroyed the explosive charges and their detonators.

      Only the existence of the micro spheres that were iron rich may but doesn’t have to point to a thermitic reaction and a high school level test of observing micro flash when setting the flake on fire with a bunsen burner may but doesn’t have to indicate that there was elemental Al that got oxidized producing a flash.
      Exactly. They have some spheres. That is all the evidence that is left after diligent scrutiny. And the claim that “only” thermite could result in such spheres is wishful thinking.

      I have noticed that in minds of many the thermite acquired extraordinary and mythical properties. This is because we do not know that much of its properties, so all claims that thermite could for example toss several tons columns at 50 mph are just pure unwarranted suppositions.
      Yes. They haven’t actually worked any of this out. It’s all speculation.

  26. WHY Harrit et al. presented FIG. (30) in THEIR PAPER?

    The values measured from DSC for four samples they present has no relation to energy density of thermite. And they present these four values ranging from 1 to 7 kJ/g next to measured or theoretical values of energy densities of known explosive including thermite Al/Fe2O3. This is disinformation, an intent of planting suggestion that a superficial reader reaches a false conclusion.

    I have studied this paper for the first time in last two days and discussions here with Jens Schmidt were very useful. I had to learn and figure are some aspects of this topic that I was not familiar with before but with the help of internet I managed to cover lots of subjects. I came to it with an open mind. I gave Harris et al. benefit of doubt scientist deserve. They were doing very difficult forensic scene investigation having only trace samples. But they are scientist and from scientists (and not some hacks for hire from the FBI forensic lab who are known to falsify evidence when needed) I expected an honest investigation and an honest report. Why did they generate and present the Fig. (30)? I do not think it was an omission or some other mistake. No, they wanted to drive the conclusion: look we are dealing with an explosive; we measured energy density and compare it with that of known explosives and it is within the range. These are the suggestions that those who glance at the paper only or who read it superficially are going to take home. And did they do it on purpose? Yes, because they do not discuss the Fig. (30) and the values of the energy densities they measure within the paper. If they did, they would have to disclose all that makes the values they measured invalid as a measure of energy density. For example they would have to say that they measured it in oxygen while the ones for HMX, TNT, TABT, Al/Fe2O3 are w/o external oxygen as is the case for real explosives. The value they measure should be rather compared with gasoline that has circa 40kJ/g energy density when burnt in atmosphere which is 10 times higher than the value for a real thermite. They needed that oxygen because it was an organic material burning and not thermite that does not need oxygen. Furthermore to measure energy density one has to know the mass. How did they know the mass when the burning was incomplete and fractional only? A lot of red layer was left.

    The fact they generated and presented the Fig. (30) is damning. It was not a mistake. It was to sway, to misinform…

    This finding makes me really sad as always when I am disappointed by characters of people whom I gave (as I always give to people I do not know) my trust.

    1. “This finding makes me really sad as always when I am disappointed by characters of people whom I gave (as I always give to people I do not know) my trust.”~utu

      It is my opinion that you have just participated in a futile exercise, resulting in bamboozling yourself.
      \\][//

  27. Wang et al. Mechanism for thermite reactions of aluminum/iron-oxide nanocomposites based on residue analysis, http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

    In this paper they describe how they manufacture nano and micro thermites in sol-gel process.
    And they analyse them also with DSC scans for nano and micro thermites. It seems that nano thermites ignite below Al melt point while micro thermites ignite above the melting point and in case micro thermite the ignition point is reduced for sol-gel method thermites. There is no reduction of temperature for nano thermites.

    Two nanocomposites, nano-Al/xero-Fe2O3 and micro-Al/xero-Fe2O3, were prepared by a sol−gel process derived by 1,2-epoxypropane.

    Fig. 5a Shows DSC curves for three nano-Al thermites. The peak width is similar for all three but the height is largest for the nano-Al/xero-Fe2O3, ie, the sol-gel method and lowest for the regular mixture. Table 1 quantifies height differences as: 4.3, 2.8 and 2.0 (W/g) respectively.

    1. I knew the Yi Wang paper already (a different Wang, by the way, than the Jeff Wang you cited earlier).

      It seems that nano thermites ignite below Al melt point while micro thermites ignite above the melting point
      Yes.

      Fig. 5a Shows DSC curves for three nano-Al thermites. The peak width is similar for all three
      okay… and?

      but the height is largest for the …
      Careful! The plot lines are stacked in Fig. 5a for easier comparison of the events along the x-axis! Wang et al do not put a scale on the y-axis. You were right to take the values from Table 1.
      Table 1 lists the interesting data, for example “ΔHr (J/g)” – that’s the energy density: The nano-Al mixes range from ~1.4 to ~1.65 kJ/g and thus outperform the micro-Al mixes (all slightly below 1 kJ/g). All thermite compositions fall far short of the theoretical maximum of thermite at 4 kJ/g. I haven’t seen any work so far that documented more than those 1.65 kJ/g for nano-thermite.

  28. To Jens Schmidt

    To large extend I do agree with your negative opinion about Harrit et al. you have expressed in exchange with HR1. However claiming that the investigated samples are paint is disingenuous on your part. In exchange between you and I we expressed suspicion that DSC peaks could have been created by the binder but we have’t proven it and we haven’t seen DSC traces of paint. And from what I have read Milled did not do DSC traces for paint either. So I am not ready to go where you want to be and I would suggest you apply similar degree of skepticism and scientific rigor to your own pronouncements as you did to Harrit et al. And do not tell me that burden of proof is on them or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs because paint is commonplace and thermite is not.

    Take a look at my comment above on Fig. 30. While this may not explain the psychology of the authors it may shine some light on their state of ming when the composed the paper.

    1. claiming that the investigated samples are paint is disingenuous on your part.
      Why disingenuous? I have only given my conclusion so far .- we have not yet discussed systematically my reasons. You don’t have to believe me, for I haven’t even tried yet to persuade you, but I am not “disingenuous”.

      In exchange between you and I we expressed suspicion that DSC peaks could have been created by the binder but we have’t proven it and we haven’t seen DSC traces of paint.
      Not proven 100%, okay, but there really is no other possibility. We don’t need to even think about paint to know that there is an organic binder that MUST have reacted with a significant exotherm.

      And from what I have read Milled did not do DSC traces for paint either.
      So what? Why should he have?
      The reasons why the chips are paint don’t rest that much on the DSC traces, really. The DSC traces are a good falsification, but they cannot prove paint (but some corroboration is possible, as Í may come around to showing you eventually)

      So I am not ready to go where you want to be and I would suggest you apply similar degree of skepticism and scientific rigor to your own pronouncements as you did to Harrit et al
      Yes.

      And do not tell me that burden of proof is on them
      Stop. Burden of proof is on them for their claims (“thermite”). Burden of proof is on me for my claims (e.g. “paint”). It doesn’t matter very much if the chips are paint or not. What matters is that Harrit et al are plain wrong to claim they have proven thermite.
      But they are paint😀

      …or that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs because paint is commonplace and thermite is not.
      Don’t worry, I don’t use that phrase. However I would like to point out that “paint” really is, or ought to be the null-hypothesis, as the chips really look like paint, and we already know as a certain fact that there were tons of primer paint in the WTC towers. Red primer paint, even in the form of red-gray chips. are definitely expected a priori to be found in the WTC dust, while thermite would not.
      Even Harrit et al implicitly accept “paint” as the null-hypothesis to improbe upon when they attempt (but really fail, as I have yet to explain; I only hinted yet at the “apples/bananas” problem) to disprove “paint” in two or three places in the paper.

      Take a look at my comment above on Fig. 30. While this may not explain the psychology of the authors it may shine some light on their state of ming when the composed the paper.
      I understand your suspicion. But I won’t claim I know or understand the personal pschology of the authors.

    2. Utu,
      I still want to see Schmidt produce the formation of iron-rich microspheres during burning of paint.

      I presume that, being the working chemist he claims to be he has access to lab where he can conduct a proper experiment and get the proper readings for the process he uses and the tests on the resulting materials.

      Or perhaps he can attempt the theorize his way to such conclusions…grin
      \\][//

      1. On the website, 911JusticeCampaign.org are listed 103 key suspects. This list was developed by galen–who was a primary resource in developing the 911JusticeCampaign.org website.

        Question to Jens Schmidt: Who is missing from the list at http://911justicecampaign.org/suspected-9-11-criminal-coconspirators/ who could be subpoenaed or indicted?

        Another question about chemistry: Why has this group largely ignored the FEMA Appendix C “Limited Metallurgical Examination” report in these discussions? EDS profiles seem to support thermitic “rapid sulfidation and oxidation” of the steel. The Bentham paper references this science as corroborative of their findings.

        1. Another question about chemistry: Why has this group…
          Which group?

          … largely ignored the FEMA Appendix C “Limited Metallurgical Examination” report in these discussions?
          Which discussions?
          Why should that report be discussed, and in which discussions? Why?

          EDS profiles seem to support thermitic “rapid sulfidation and oxidation” of the steel.
          How so? Thermite doesn’t cause sulfidation. Sulfur and some Sulfur compounds do.

          The Bentham paper references this science as corroborative of their findings.
          No, untrue.

      2. being the working chemist he claims to be
        What the…?? You invent your own facts at will, don’t you?

        I am not a chemist, and never claimed I am.

        1. “I am not a chemist, and never claimed I am.”~Schmidt

          Pardon my egregious infraction! So what are you a bellboy?
          \\][//

          1. I claim no formal training or professional experience in the relevant fields of scientific research,
            It doesn’t matter what I am. What matters is whether my claims are true and my arguments valid.

            You previously quoted at length from an article by Messiers Talboo and Zugam – have you questioned what they are, or why did you put such complete and blind faith in their utterings that you didn’t even adorn their words with any comment of your own?

            Double standards much, HR1?

          2. Good to know Schmidt, I have not formal training a a scientist either, nor do Messiers Talboo and Zugam. They are journalist and artist as I understand it.
            What is “blind faith”? No I find their arguments reasonable and coherent with what I have learned of these matters

            You say; “What matters is whether my claims are true and my arguments valid.”

            That is so indeed, I do not find you arguments valid. So, here we are at the place this all started.

            I had looked up your name and found a chemist with your name in Copenhagen if I recall correctly. It doesn’t matter now, you obviously ain’t the guy.

            We obviously are having a failure to communicate here Mr Schmidt. I see no profit in continuing this carousel.

            Maybe you can cook some paint at home. Just be sure it is well ventilated, and wear goggles.
            \\][//

            1. What is “blind faith”? No I find their arguments reasonable and coherent with what I have learned of these matters
              As you perhaps found out in the last 48 hours or so, what you have learned of these matters is actually very little to almost nothing. There is no shame in that. Knowing that you don’t know is a good start on a journey to knowledge,
              You should perghaps hold your judgement until you know a little more.

              I do not find you arguments valid.
              That’s not quite true. You don’t find them convincing perhaps, but you haven’t probed the validity of my arguments. You can’t actually explain WHY you don’t believe my arguments. You mainly dismis them without argument, if you don’t ignore them.

              We obviously are having a failure to communicate here Mr Schmidt.
              This would not occur if you addressed my arguments. Your constant evasions and your constant desire to find fault with the person rather than the argument is what derails our communication. Perhaps this is what you aimed at when you sensed that my discussion of Harrit et al is highly competent?

              1. “Perhaps this is what you aimed at when you sensed that my discussion of Harrit et al is highly competent?”~Schmidt

                “Perhaps” wouldn’t be the operative word here. I don’t find your argument here particularly competent at all.

                You can dance, spin and continue your psychobabble all you wish.
                I would rather sit this ta ta tango out.
                \\][//

                1. I don’t find your argument here particularly competent at all.
                  Why? Have I made any argument about any aspect of the Harrit paper that is false, invalid or weak?
                  You haven’t actually pointed out any fault with any of my arguments.
                  So how did you decide my arguments are not competent when you don’t find any fault wuth them?

                  Please pick up any argument that you have found a fault in and explain why that argument is faulty🙂

                  1. Riding along on a carousel…. can you say “paint”?

                    Let it be Schmidt, the ride has been too long already.
                    \\][//

                  2. If I were a member of a jury that had to decide whether Harrit et al. have proven that samples they tested were or contained thermite I would voted NO because I have what I consider a reasonable doubt(s). On the other hand if Jens Schmidt was presenting his case to the same jury stating that samples that Harrit et al. tested did not contain thermite I would voted NO as well. Neither Harris et al. nor Schmidt make their cases beyond reasonable doubt. Still, if judge would have permitted me to side with either of the plaintiffs I would have sided with Harrit et al. because they actually had their samples in their hands and performed various tests while Jens Schmidt did not test any samples and bases his case on Harrit et al. paper that most likely is defective or insufficient to decide this way or other. If the case concerned some mathematical theorem and its proof there would be no difference between Harrit et al. and Schmidt but this is not mathematics. And if I were the judge in these cases I would fine both Harrit el al. and Jens Schmidt for lack of humility and arrogance and for having chuzpah to bother people with their opinions without doing their homework first.

  29. Jens,

    I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?

    Have you done so already? If so please direct me to your paper/presentation. What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?

    I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time. I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.

    So far though, and this is just my opinion, Jens it seems to me that you are missing the forest because of the trees. There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos. Surely you are not saying that was caused by office fires reacting with (take your pick)? It seems very clear to me that this was molten metal pouring out which from my understanding could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer. Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower? Jones and Harrits theory does.

    1. Hi Adam,

      Harrit pointed out that the red-gray chips were soaked in acetone to remove impurities. They remained firm and solid. Soaking a sample of the paint primer left it limp and soggy and it fell apart. I think this is both in a written response, and on a video as well. Harrit has made comments as to Millette’s failed attempts on several occasions.
      \\][//

      1. Yes thank you HR1. I also have Jones video presentation which I have to watch again to pull up the relevant points he made which I do not have time to do today.

      2. Harrit pointed out that the red-gray chips were soaked in acetone to remove impurities.
        Which chips?
        Are you sure he said “acetone”?
        Are you sure they soaked chips in solvent to remove impurities?

        Soaking a sample of the paint primer left it limp and soggy and it fell apart.
        A sample of WHICH primer paint? Or do you believe there exists only one primer paint?

        I think this is both in a written response, and on a video as well. Harrit has made comments as to Millette’s failed attempts on several occasions.
        Links would be great.

          1. I just want to update to say that the solvent the chips and paint samples were soaked in was MEK – not Acetone as I had recalled.

            I have had to work with both of these products and they are both terribly dangerous to handle and inhale.
            \\][//

            1. OK, I read both articles.Now what?

              I have had to work with both of these products and they are both terribly dangerous to handle and inhale
              Ooohh! Bamboozle bambooozle!😀

    2. Several typo’s in the above which I could not correct after it was posted. They are as follows:

      I said: “I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”

      I meant to say: “I have seen this argument before about the red/grey chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit.”

      I said: “could not be produced by burning office contents of paint or primer.”

      I meant to say: “could not be produced by burning office contents or paint or primer.”

    3. Thanks, ruffadam, for your courteous and reasonable reply!

      I see no reason whatsoever that you should not write a paper with all your idea’s regarding the nano-thermite issue in it and present it to Jones and Harrit and the rest of the truth community so they and we can respond to it. You claim to have uncovered serious flaws in their (Jones and Harrit) analysis so why not present them in a concise paper so they can be responded to?
      That’s a good idea, actually. It would take some time to realize though. Responding to individual points on a discussion board required a lot less structuring and precision than writing a paper.

      Have you done so already?
      No.

      What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?
      In part, it’s testing how the arguments are received.

      I have seen this argument before about the paint chips being paint and to my memory the claim was addressed by both Jones and Harrit. I will try to find my sources for this claim but will need some time.
      That would be great!

      I do recall that there were some very clear proofs that the chips could not have been paint or primer presented in either a paper or in a video which I will endeavor to find.
      Sounds like you are thinking of Harrit’s “Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint“?

      There are overlapping pieces of evidence that point to thermite/nano-thermite which cannot be explained away as paint or primer. For example the liquified metal seen pouring out from the tower in several videos
      What observation, fact or logic would connect the red-gray chips to that flow of some glowing material? I see none. This is pure conjecture.

      Perhaps there was thermite used in the demolition of the towers – but the red-gray chips are not that thermite. Because they are not thermitic.

      Does your theory of what happened explain the molten metal pouring out of the tower?
      I have no theory of what happened.

      Jones and Harrits theory does.
      Really? How so?
      They don’t know what the red-gray chips are, they have no theory how they were used, where they were applied. They actually have no explanation for the flow of glowing material that involves the red-gray chips and any of their known properties.
      And anyway, Harrit and Jones claim, erroneously, that the exotherm of the red-gray chips was a thermite reaction. It clearly wasn’t. If they take that as premise for an explanation of the glowing flow, the premise would be false.

      In general: Even if the red-gray chips are paint, that does not disprove thermite was used to demolish the towers, or thermite explains the flow.
      And even it the red-gray chips are thermite, that does not mean they explain the glowing flow or the demolition of the towers.
      In any case, each claim must stand on its own evidence. You need to prove both that the red-gray chips are thermitic AND that the glowing flow was the result of a thermitic reaction before you can reasinably hypothesize a causal connection between the two.

  30. DSC traces Harrit vs. Millette

    Millete did not carry out DSC traces. DSC test are important tool to study energetic materials. Results of Harrit et al. resemble traces obtained by others who tested nano thermites:

    Yi Wang et al.
    http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf
    Jeff Wang et al.
    https://uwaterloo.ca/centre-advanced-materials-joining/sites/ca.centre-advanced-materials-joining/files/uploads/files/nanothermite_jpcs.pdf

    as well as papers/reports from LLNL
    Nanostructured Energetic Materials with Sol-Gel Methods
    https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/302999.pdf

    The above papers do not state whether O2 or inert gas was present during DSC test. However Yi Wang tested nano thermite (not a sol gel) w/o a organic binder and got it ignited just like sol-gel nano-thermite an the same temperature.

    Jones in his letter http://911blogger.com/news/2012-09-08/letter-regarding-redgray-chip-analyses wrote the following:

    “You suggest that you would like to ignite the red material in an inert atmosphere, which is not a bad idea but there are caveats. Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air; which is why we did our tests in air also. Thus, we could make direct comparisons with the LLNL data on nano-thermite fabricated at the LLNL laboratory.
    Later, we mixed up some ultra-fine aluminum and iron-oxide powders thus making a type of nano-thermite (but with no organic matrix). This was run in the DSC at BYU in an inert atmosphere up to 700C – and it did not ignite! We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.”
    _________

    I’m siding here with Jones. Because if samples tested by Millete did display different DSC traces than the ones obtained by Harrit et al. this would indicate that Millete samples were not the same as Harrit samples. Still, however I do not believe that Jones et al. presented a definitive proof they dealt with thermite samples.

    1. I’m siding here with Jones. Because if samples tested by Millete did display different DSC traces than the ones obtained by Harrit et al. this would indicate that Millete samples were not the same as Harrit samples.
      By the same reasoning, you should conclude that Harrit’s samples are not the same as Harrit’s samples: The green and black curves have several features not seen in the blue and red curve, and vice versa.

      Harrit et al tested at least two different materials in the DSC and never realized it!

      This can be no wonder, as their elemental (XEDS) analysis also identified red-gray chips as being several different materials: the MEK-soaked chip is very different from chips a-d (with its significant Mg and Zn content and the large disparity between the Al and Si peaks), the multi-layerd chip has additional Pb, and other chips were found to contain additional Cu or Ba. One chip even had a gray layer that wasn’t iron-based.

      They established no selection criteria beyond the initial “is magnetically attracted and looks red-gray“. Therefore, they tested apples and oranges in the DSC, and in all other test.
      This ALONE renders the paper inconclusive and extremely poor.

      Millette concentrated on chips that were very similar to Harrit’s chips a-d in that their main EDS peaks were limited to C, O, Al, Si and Fe, where the Al and Si peaks were about the same height, and which had the two characteristically shaped particles: rhombic, Fe-rich grains and hexagonal. Al- and Si-rich platelets.
      If you argue that Millette maybe had the wrong chips, then you must also throw out Harrit’s chips a-d as the wrong chips. This then would deprive you of any and all evidence in the paper that there are “nano-particles” and that there is iron oxide in the red layer of the remaing chips (well, except for the red color of course).

      1. Pls Schmidt, do nor make constructions ” If you… you must..” Where did you learn this schtick? County fair debate performance?

        Millette did not do DSC or he did not present i? W/o DSC Millette work is noted but cannot serve as a definitive proof that Harrit’s samples had no thermite.

        1. Millette did not do DSC or he did not present i? W/o DSC Millette work is noted but cannot serve as a definitive proof that Harrit’s samples had no thermite.
          I don’t understand how you arrived at this conclusion. Why do you think that DSC is a necessary test to prove or disprove thermite? By what criteria derived from a DSC test would you decide whether a substance is or isn’t thermitic?

          1. By looking at the two Wangs’ articles and LLNL reports I know what DSC traces to expect when dealing with thermites. Harrit’s DSC traces are similar though not identical (a lower temperature of ignition). I haven’t seen DSC profiles of paint or other non-energetic organic materials. Have you? Millette did not do show them (why?). Jones claims (in his letter) they tested some paints and got bland DSC shapes (w/o definitive peaks) but they did not show them either (why?). The case is still open. But I sense that you want it to be closed very much. You can close it but you have to present evidence that cannot be found in Millette or Harrit papers. Do you have any evidence from without their papers? So far you did not present it.

              1. Harrit et al. and Millette are primary sources and this is what I read and I get it. What you linking here is a secondary source. They are for people not capable to read the primary sources with a proper comprehension. The authors of the secondary sources often do not understand science. And thet have their own spin and bring their own agendas. HR1, beware of secondary sources. You do not want to be at their mercy. However, I’m afraid, a person w/o a proper scientific background – like yourself – has no choice but is left to mercies of the interpreters.

                1. The original sources are quoted, utu.
                  Do you understand that the iron rich microspheres are not just any iron spheroid?

                  ” I’m afraid, a person w/o a proper scientific background – like yourself – has no choice but is left to mercies of the interpreters.”
                  Don’t give me this bullshit Utu.
                  You’re on your own.
                  \\][//

                    1. Yea Sockpuppet,

                      I figure it is a routine too. We get the real sophisticated agenteur here on T&S.

                      I say we just ignore both of these clowns.
                      \\][//

                    2. Cool, the arguments are over your head, the results not to your liking. What does the rational gentleman do?

                      Right – ignore!😀

                    3. sockpuppet2012, like hybridrogue1, cannot refute the arguments. So instead he smears the persons.

                      Too obvious.

                      Just like Kevin Ryan could not refute Millette, so he tried to assassin the character. Poor shmocks.

                  1. “utu” is allowed to “refute” some of what “Jens Schmidt” says, while maintaining that Harrit and Jones are incompetent buffoons.

                    It’s the “Good cop/Bad cop” routine.

                    “utu” says to “Schmidt”:

                    “Come on, Schmidt…..lay off Hr1 a little bit…..here…let me explain it to him”

                    1. Yes yes Sock! We were suckered into the weeds far away from the issue of this thread, which is the nonsense from Chandler et al on the Pentagon. Everything those two jerks said was a simple diversion tactic.

                      Live and learn…forget and then get kicked in the ass by this jive nonsense and learn again.
                      \\][//

                  2. Willy said:

                    “I figure it is a routine too. We get the real sophisticated agenteur here on T&S”

                    That proves the importance of this Blog, and why the Pentagon Clan won’t be caught dead near this place.

            1. @utu
              By looking at the two Wangs’ articles and LLNL reports I know what DSC traces to expect when dealing with thermites.
              If you overlay all those DSC traces, you will find that the values are somewhat all over the place, some graphs have 2 exotherm peaks, the peak temperatures vary, the maximum specific power varies, etc. The property “has an exotherm peak somewhere between 550 °C and 950 °C” is so vague and general, it doesn’t help at all to identify the substances or the reactions.
              Anyway, the red-gray material is obviously quite different from all the thermites you looked at: The latter contain no or little organic residue (Tillotson found 10%, some Wang preparations have none), and none have this big inert mass of pure iron oxide. So you would expect from the start that the chips’ traces would differ significantly from those of purer thermite even if they actually did contain thermite.
              And lastly, the Wangs and the LLNL teams do not apply DSC to identify the substance or the reaction! To that end, they use XRD and electron microscopy. They usd DSC to investigate the performance of their preparations. It’s like you might use a person scale to investigate the efficacy of a diet: If you plot your weight from day to day and find that you lose weight quickly in the first week and then stall, that plot would not help to identify specifically you or that particular diet! If another researcher did scale tests on some person and found the same pattern of “weight loss the first week, then stall”, he would be wrong to conclude that that person ate the same diet that you did.

              Harrit’s DSC traces are similar though not identical (a lower temperature of ignition).
              Every exotherm chemical reaction would be “similar”: Show a peak like Harrit’s specimens, only at different temperatures.

              I haven’t seen DSC profiles of paint or other non-energetic organic materials. Have you?
              You imply that paint is non-energetic. Why do you say that? What do you understand by “energetic”? One WTC paint is based on an alkyd resin with linseed oil which both crosslink to harden when curing. This is an “energetic” material in the most ordinary sense of the word: They release energy (exotherm reaction) when burning. The other known WTC primer paint consists of about 70% epoxy. Epoxy, too, is energetic: It reacts exothermaly when exceeding its ingnition temperature of ~425 °C. And guess at what temperattre Harrit’s chips burn the most powerfully…
              Here is a paper that has DSC traces of an organic binder (epoxy):
              http://revroum.lew.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/4/Art%2006.pdf (Fig. 1, top right)
              https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/19722/ferranti_louis_200712_phd.pdf?sequence=1 ()
              I have a link to a paper that does DSC tests on oil paints (cured linseed, sunflower and stand oil), but that is behind a $30 pay wall. It used to have some of the figures visible, but no longer.

              Millette did not do show them (why?).
              Millette’s lab, MVA, is a forensic lab with all the equipment needed to identify materials collected at crime scenes and elsewhere.
              A DSC device is not there. That’s because DSC is not a method used by experienced, competent forensicists.
              He didn’t do DSC. He could have sent a specimen to another lab that does DSC, but that would have cost money, and why do it anyway? DSC results are not fingerprints in the way that XRD, XEDS, FTIR or SAED are.

              Jones claims (in his letter) they tested some paints and got bland DSC shapes (w/o definitive peaks) but they did not show them either (why?).
              Right – why not show them? And why not tell WHICH paint(s) they tested! WTC paint? I doubt it, actually! And did they test those paints with a dominant gray iron oxide layer attached?
              You can choose to believe these claims, or remain sceptical.

              But I sense that you want it to be closed very much. You can close it but you have to present evidence that cannot be found in Millette or Harrit papers. Do you have any evidence from without their papers? So far you did not present it.
              I only have the papers by Harrit et al and Millette, plus an open letter by Harrit (“Why The Red/Gray Chips Are Not Primer Paint”) plus a presentation of results from red-gray chips by Mark Basile (Screenshots), plus a study on red-gray by a French researcher, F. Henry-Couannier, plus a few statements by Jones and Farrer. I haven’t nearly presented all of these results!

              For the time being, I think we can close the book on the assertion that Harrit et al “proved” the materrial is thermitic. They have not. And with this, they ball is in their court, and nothing else needs to be done as long as they don’t play it. No researcher has actually confirmed their findings (Basile THINKS he has, but his result of only 1.7% Al in the red layer, of which no doubt a significant proportion is already oxidized) belies that claim: Pure, ideal thermite has about 25% Al and releases under 4 kJ/g. A substance with 1.7 % Al could thus release at most 4 kJ/g * 1.7/25 = 0.27 kJ/g. Assuming his chip is the same material as the four chips in Harrit’s DSC, it follows that less than 18% (best case: comparison with blue curve) or less than 3.5% (comparison with the green curve) of the heat release could possibly come from a thermite reaction.
              But there actually is no evidence at all that any thermite was present or reacted.
              None whatsover.
              Yes, the theory is dead already.

  31. “Paint” Schmidt,

    Say it Schmidt, “p-r-i-m-e-r — p-a-i-n-t” – “Primer Paint” – say it aloud and see how you have to pucker your lips to pronounce it.

    Now write it out; “Primer Paint”. Your conclusion is that the red-gray chips are primer paint.

    That is your ‘CONCLUSION’.

    There is a two way street in rational argumentation. One path is the Proximate Premise. If that premise is wrong, you lay a base of sand, and any structure built on top of that base is liable to collapse at the slightest shift in the base of sand. By the same token, a Faulty Conclusion is an unbearable weight atop your erroneous construction and will crush it down to the sand of the faulty premise it is meant to support.

    This is why all of your verbosity leading up and down the lanes are faulty.
    A keen eye can discern from either a faulty premise or a faulty conclusion and determine that the structure in between is pure psychobabble.

    The philosophy of argumentum holds the key to critical thinking skills. One need not be a specialist in any science or technology to recognize a faulty argument. The key is in the argumentation.
    \\][//

    1. You sound like Fetzer. Full of pseudo epistemology and Schopenhauer eristic while at the same hardly grasping significance of science.

      1. Oh Utu! How can you be so cruel?? To liken me to Fetzer?!? Lol

        Your assertion that I hardly grasp the significance of science is misplaced and preposterous.
        Your arguing against the well established philosophy of critical thinking is even more egregious.

        I made one mistake involving the DSN; and you claim this disqualifies my knowledge of science?

        You think I am being especially hard on Mr Schmidt? His ‘decorum’ is a thin veil for the obvious arrogance he maintains. And yes his assertion that the red-gray chips are primer paint is preposterous.

        Are you now playing that drunk waking up and thinking he got to the bench by UFO?
        Etu Brute? A hippopotamus of hypocrisy? A chirping harpy clicking its tongue?
        \\][//

          1. Splendid! A reiteration of the hypocrisy I just mentioned. Etu Utu???
            Yes I know it is spelled Et tu… just a sarcastic jab at your moniker.

            If you wish to jabber on with this silly back and forth go ahead. Get the last word in, you deserve a break.
            \\][//

    2. A keen eye can discern from either a faulty premise or a faulty conclusion
      This is very telling – you say you take as premise that a conclusion is faulty and argue from there? Thanks for revealing how your mind works.

      The philosophy of argumentum holds the key to critical thinking skills.
      What pseudo-intellectual babble!

      You found no faulty premise
      You found no faulty reasoning
      So you simply declare the conclusion false without any argument and work backwards from there?
      Fascinating.

      1. “So you simply declare the conclusion false without any argument and work”~Schmidt

        I don’t need to do any argument or work, the red gray chips are not paint.

        You need to do the argument and work to prove the chips are paint.

        You are the one disputing the Jones-Harrit findings. It is your responsibility to prove them wrong. You are not arguing with me Schmidt, you are arguing against Jones-Harrit.
        \\][//

  32. notruth in oz –

    another entirely fatuous blog that supports the mendacity that said aircraft impacted the pentagon based on no suppoting credible evidence that shows such beyond all reasonable doubt is this ridiculous example of so called alternative media regurgitation of official spin..

    http://www.truthnews.com.au/

    thankfully, the idiot in control seems to have had his ability to control the flow of critical comments go into meltdown of some sort, and has disallowed any sort of commenting other than confirmed arselickers for fear of legitimate criticism..

    there are other sites too.. that pretend to be some sort of alternative to mainstream BS.. but refuse to stop yelling “conspiracy theorist” when anyone dare post any of the evidence that shows why it is not unreasonable to question the official account, in no particular order…

    https://newmatilda.com/
    http://theaimn.com/
    https://theconversation.com/au
    https://independentaustralia.net/

  33. Millete did not perform DSC traces. DSC tests are very important in studying energetic materials.
    Yes, but the Harrit study was not a study to figure out the properties of an energetic study, but a forensic study to find out what an unknown substance is. In contrast to methods such as XEDS, XRD, FTIR or SAED, the thermal traces do not provide unique and precise fingerprints. That’s why DSC is not that good at identifying a material.

    The above papers do not explicitly state whether DSC test were done under inert gas condition or in the presence of oxygen.
    I would bet serious money that they were done under inert gas. Residues of organic substances in their sol-gel preparations clearly demand doing DSC without oxygen.

    Y Wang has tested regular nano thermite powder (no binder) and obtained the same ignition point as for the sol-gel nano thermites.
    You mean that tends to refute Jones, right?

    You quote Jones:
    We concluded that oxygen may be important to get the reaction initiated.
    Since they did not also test under inert gas, that is speculation.
    But of course it is true: 7.5 kJ/g means inescapably that the substance reactied with external oxygen, It just wasn’t a thermite reaction.

    You quote Jones:
    Dr Farrer of our team contacted one of the LLNL scientists about this issue, and was informed that the LLNL tests of nano-thermite were performed in air
    But Jones added a note at the end of the article:
    After publication of our paper, others have suggested that the experiments in the LLNL publication were performed in an inert atmosphere; so the picture is not clear to us at this time and further contact with the LLNL scientists is advised.
    The article that Jones references here and in Fig 29 of Harrit et al is
    http://de.scribd.com/doc/80585354/T-M-Tillotson-et-al-Nanostructured-energetic-materials-using-sol-gel-methodologies
    They write about the organic impurities:
    From elemental analysis we have observed thatthese materials have organic impurities that makeup 10% of the sample by mass [23]. It is likely that the impurities are due to residual solvent and/or epoxide or epoxide by-products from the syn-thesis.
    epoxide releases about 20 kJ/g of energy when burned on air, solvents usually more. If their material was 10% epoxide or similar, and it was allowed to burn on air, then it would contribute about 2 kJ/g (10% of 20 kJ/g) to the total heat release – more than they measured total! Also epoxy ignites around 425 °C. There is no marked thermal event in that region in Tillotson’s DSC trace. It follows that the trace was very unlikely won under air.

    DSC tests of Millette samples possibly might produce different non-energetic DSC traces. But we do not know.
    Speculation.

    The temperature of the peak of the traces obtained by Harritt seems to be too high to be that of an organic compound
    No. Here is a document on the combustion properties of many polymers:
    http://www.fire.tc.faa.gov/pdf/05-14.pdf
    Table A-1 lists the temperature for three thermal events; the third is ignition temperature. You will find plenty near or above 425 °C.
    We had previously looked at the ignition poins of various explosives. These are not crosslinked polymers like an organic binder would be. Breaking the crosslinks requires the additional heat that pushed polymer ignition points above those of oligomers and monomers.

    but it is significantly lower than that of nano thermites by Yi Wang or LLNL
    Yes, although I have seen at least one report that found a nano-thermite preparation to ignite around 450 °C, if I recall correctly. Don’t have the link handy.

    Since Millette does not want to perform DSC tests then ideally Harritt and Jones should provide more DSC tests as well as comparative test of organic materials like paints.
    What would be the purpose of that? DSC is not a good method to identify unknown substances. Can you explain the purpose of such a study?

    Some paint samples should be obtained from old steel construction columns.
    Then you’d compare one unknown with another unknown, for you will typically not know the paint composition of old steel construction columns. You realize that different paints have different binders and different pigments in different proportions? Apples and bananas.

    I conclude that Millette did not negate Harritt et al. findings beyond a reasonable doubt.
    Millette didn’t need to do DSC at all to identify precisely the identity of ALL constituents of those red-gray chips that match Harrit’s chips a-d: What the gray layer is (a steel similar to A36 with manganese and low carbon; oxidized), what the organic binder is (epoxy), what the small rhombic grains are (alpha-Fe2O3, called hematite), and what the hexagonal platelets are (kaolinite, an Aluminium Silicate). He additionally found a bit of TiO2. All these ingredients are perfectly consistent with red primer paint on oxidized structural steel.
    He found no elemental Aluminium. That rules out thermite.

    Here is Millette’s report:
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112webHiRes.pdf

  34. An analogy from the DEW proposition by Judy Wood:

    Wood’s proximate premise was that since there is no seismic signal accompanying the collapse of the material of a WTC tower as it slammed to the ground; that the material must have “dustified” — ie, “disappeared’. (‘Where Did The Towers Go?’ – Judy Wood)

    Where is the error? It is quite simple is it not? The material of the tower did not slam to the ground in a single instant. This is self evident by simple observation of any video of the events.
    It took TIME for the material to hit the ground as many thousands of separate events. Some 10 to 14 seconds of time for each tower.

    One knows in the very first instance of Wood’s hypothesis that it is based on a prima facie falsehood. It is self evidently untrue.

    From that point, one then goes through the futile and fruitless exercise of addressing all of the other assertions that Wood makes to back up her initial premise, and finds that each one of these are equally provably false. This is PREDICTED by the provably false premise; yet we are “challenged” to go through every single point of her argument to prove beyond doubt that she is wrong. THIS is logical error. We KNEW she was wrong from her proximate error.

    In arguments such as these, it can become argumentum ad infinitum – an endless carousel of blithering nonsense.

    I propose that the suggestion that the red-gray chips in the WTC dust are primer paint, is just as obviously false as Judy Wood’s suggestion that lack of seismic signal proved that the towers disappeared.
    \\][//

    1. Wood’s proximate premise was that since there is no seismic signal accompanying the collapse of the material of a WTC tower as it slammed to the ground
      I am not sure this is a precise and fair rendering of Wood’s premise (I haven’t really looked at her work yet), but assuming it is. it is obviously false: There were seismic signals accompanying the collapse of the material of each of the three WTC towers as they slammed to the ground. So yes, if that is actually her premise, every conclusion that follows is invalid.
      (She has plenty of other premises that are all false, plus a few instances of strangely erroneous reasoning. If anyone should seriously be interested in what they were, we can discuss that in a separate discussion if, when and where it fits. For the moment, I am merely areeing with you, HR1, and saying more specifically why I agree)

      From that point, one then goes through the futile and fruitless exercise of addressing all of the other assertions that Wood makes to back up her initial premise, and finds that each one of these are equally provably false.
      This is the routine that you want to put me through.

      The starting point of our current debate here was your assertion that 10 W/g, twice the specific power of some nanothermite preparation, indicates a “high brisance” – that the chips reacted very fast, vigorously, even “explosively” (for “brisance” is a property of explosives) in the DSC experiment.

      That premise was FALSE.

      It, or rather something related, is also a premise taken as true by Harrit el al to justify their conclusions, but is actually FALSE: That the DSC results show “narrow” peaks, indicating a “vigorous” reaction.

      At that point, if you had consistent standards, Harrit et al should have gone the way of Judy Wood’s claims in your book, HR1. Why didn’t they?

      1. I cannot be any clearer or direct than this; You are not arguing with me Schmidt, you are arguing against Jones-Harrit.
        Consequently I am not arguing with you.

        I have made note of the endless carousel, the one too long gone ’round.

        You Schmidt make yourself out to be more important that you are here. I am under no obligation to answer your every question, to satisfy your every need for attention.

        This is beginning to remind me of that Monty Python sketch, “This is Not an Argument”
        “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t” “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t” “Yes it is!” – ‘No it isn’t”

        No it isn’t.
        \\][//

            1. I pointed out several of your false claims twice already. You failed to address them and argue. Why would it be different the third time around?

              1. “The red chips measured about 10 1/2 Watts/Gram compared to about 5 Watts/Gram — at least twice the brisance of the military sol-gel.

              2. “the chip was ignited by an electrical charge, during the experiments with Harrit

              3. “Cole was able to achieve such explosive effects with regular scale Thermate” (namely “tossing columns” and “powederizing concrete”, the former later changed to tossing “the top off of a capped column“, which was FALSE, too)

              4. “we do have physical evidence of a sol-gel energetic explosive in the Jones-Harrit study” – that’s false on two distinct counts – no evidence for sol-gel, no evidence for explosive

              5. “There are several charts in that presentation Schmidt, one of them IS of the primer paint graph.

              6. “In terms of kJ/g the material Jones and Harrit studied compares well with traditional explosives.

              7. “Yes I do you know what DSC is. It works by placing 2 samples in separated dishes in the DSC. One sample is heated, while the control sample is not.” (That’s to related counts of false claims – the claim that you “know” what DSC is, and the claim about not heating the reference material, which proves the former to be false)

              8. Your implications that there exists a “larger scientific community that has actually been investigating these matters“, and that this imagined larger scientific community accepts that the chips are “sol-gel”

              9. The implication that there is a “proper protocol laid out in the Jones-Harrit paper

              10. “If you get a sharp peak in the calorimeter, that material is energetic” (quoted from Farrer) – lie by insinuation: the peaks aren’t sharp; and the wording suggests that being energetic is the nature and purpose of the substance, when in reality nearly every organic substance is “energetic” by this criterion

              11. “I presume that, being the working chemist he claims to be he has access to lab

              12. “the red gray chips are not paint” (this being stated as your premise)

              Is seems you so far have retracted only 2., 7. and 11. while maintaing repeatedly 3., 4. and 12. and leaving the others uncorrected.

              1. “Is seems you so far have retracted only 2., 7. and 11. while maintaing repeatedly 3., 4. and 12. and leaving the others uncorrected.”~Schmidt

                There is no need to retract anything else Schmidt, it is only your opinion that the other points are incorrect. It is only your assertion that I am incorrect on the points you list.
                \\][//

                1. “Claims of fact” and “opinion” aren’t the same things.

                  Claims of fact can be verified or falsified using objective criteria. If you had claimed the Statue of Liberty stood in El Paso, Texas, I said that false, then neither of us would state an “opinion”. Your claim of fact would be false.

                  You could try to verify your claim for example by posting photographs from EP showing the SoL there. But you refuse to do so.
                  You made those claims.
                  Burden of evidence was on you.
                  You have refused to provide evidence.
                  You fail.

                  Let’s try the first:
                  Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?
                  Then please consider what “brisance” IS:
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisance
                  WP: “Brisance /brɪˈzɑːns/ is the shattering capability of a high explosive, determined mainly by its detonation pressure. … The sand crush test and Trauzl lead block test are commonly used to determine the relative brisance in comparison to TNT … Generally, the higher this pressure, the finer the fragments generated. High detonation pressure correlates with high detonation velocity, the speed at which the detonation wave propagates through the explosive, but not necessarily with the explosive’s total energy (or work capacity)
                  Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure “the shattering capability” of the chips? NO.
                  Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure the “detonation pressure” of the chips? NO.
                  Is the sand crush test a DSC test, or does it result in W/g readings? NO.
                  Is the Trauzl lead block test a DSC test, or does it result in W/g readings? NO.
                  Did the DSC test of the chips generate fragments from the material it was in contact with (such as the sample holder)? Certainly NOT.
                  Did the DSC test, and its W/g result, measure the “detonation velocity” of the chips? NO, detonation velocity is measured in m/s.

                  So you see that your claim that the DSC test determined the “brisance” of the chips relative to Tillotson’s nanothermite is objectively false. You can hold on to your “opinion” that you claimed something true – that would be irrational, but your prerogative. It is however NOT “opinion” on my part to state that your claim is FALSE – I just tested it against objective criteria.

                  Basically you are maintaining that you don’t need evidence and logic to determine the truth value of your “opinions”. This defies every base principle of science of course.

                  1. “Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt

                    Yes, but only indirectly.

                    Would you assert that the Energy release for monomolecular explosives HMX, TNT and TATB, for energetic composite Al/Fe2O3, are not intimately related to their brisance?

                    Now once again, you are attempting to draw me into a debate that we have already had.
                    I refuse to go around and around here past this one response.

                    As you have been advised, it is in your court to make a critique of the Jones-Harrit paper. If it is your opinion that I have misinterpreted their findings – again that is your opinion, regardless of your framing your opinion as an “objective fact”.

                    FINI
                    \\][//

                    1. “Are you still of the opinion that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g?”~Schmidt
                      Yes, but only indirectly.

                      Please explain!

                      Would you assert that the Energy release
                      Energy release is not measured in W/g and not represented by the peak height. Please do not distract once again from your claim that the DSC-result of “10 1/2 Watts/Gram” measures a “brisance” twice that of 5 W/g.

                      a debate that we have already had
                      We haven’t come to the end of that debate, for which their can objectively be only one possibility: You understanding that your claim was false (nonsense) and retracting it.

          1. I made no false claims. I was mistaken about the operation of a DSC, and admitted to that. Otherwise no false claims from this quarter.
            \\][//

      2. Just as a point of fact here, Schmidt says:
        “There were seismic signals accompanying the collapse of the material of each of the three WTC towers as they slammed to the ground.”

        No, the seismic signals began BEFORE the collapse. They weren’t caused by the material raining down in thousands of separate events. The signals were caused by bombs going off in the sub basements (unseating he structure from the base) prior to the onset of the sequence detonations from the upper floors downward.

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/RousseauVol34November2012.pdf

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/scientific-critique-of-judy-woods-paper-star-wars-beam-weapons-by-james-gourley.pdf

        \\][//

  35. Well it looks as though David Chandler is staying true to his statement that his was just a drive by shooting. He left no collateral damage here, just a ricochet that came back to cause a flesh wound on himself.

    Oh well…
    \\][//

  36. To Craig McKee

    I have reread your article above. I am not familiar with all things that go on within the “truth movement” but I know that there are many conflicts, schisms and secessions. There are people of different qualities, capabilities and intentions. Some of them should not belong to that movement but I think it is impossible to weed them out. As far as Pentagon goes it should be emphasized that government did not make a good case to demonstrate that a large plane actually hit Pentagon. Why does government needs advocates to make circumstantial (because there is no evidence for a direct proof) case is not entirely clear to me. I think that more effort should be put in emphasis on what is wrong with the official narrative. And it might be useful to offer alternative scenarios (missile or bombs) but it is not necessary. Government did not make the case that large plane hit Pentagon and that is it.

    1. “I am not familiar with all things that go on within the “truth movement” but I know that there are many conflicts, schisms and secessions.”~utu

      Yes that is the most important thing for you isn’t it utu; assisting in maintaining those schisms and rifts between the Truth movement. Some are easy to weed out with enough dialog. You are a shill, a weed that doesn’t belong in this garden.
      \\][//

  37. “Farrer is the TEM lab director at Brigham Young University, where he has access to world-class equipment.” ( Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory (TEM Lab)

    And Schmidt was trying to convince us that he didn’t understand how to run a DSC.
    So Schmidt was simply here to smear and defame the scientists involved in the Jones-Harrit paper.
    I knew Schmidt was a stooge before he even started in on this thread, from the crap he was spewing on the Roth thread about the WTC7 collapse.
    This is the perfect day of the year for revealing spooks; Día de Muertos.
    \\][//

    1. “I knew Schmidt was a stooge”

      Ok, Inspector Clouseau, could you give link to pages where Schmidt was producing himself before?

    2. @Hr1:
      “Farrer is the TEM lab director at Brigham Young University, where he has access to world-class equipment.” ( Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory (TEM Lab)
      And Schmidt was trying to convince us that he didn’t understand how to run a DSC.

      Yes, correct on both counts. Farrer is a competent practitioner in the electron microscopy lab (TEM as well as SEM). His SEM and XEDS work in the Harrit paper is excellent!

      He had zero experience with a DSC the day before he DSCed those chips.

      So Schmidt was simply here to smear and defame the scientists involved in the Jones-Harrit paper.
      It follows directly from the quality of their work: Doing DSC on a specimen, that contains a LOT of organic matter, under air when you are interested in an inorganic reaction among the components of the specimen, is an obviously stupid thing to do, and the way they interprete some plot features and fail to interprete others clearly show incompetence.

      I actually like Farrer and would trust him with a lot (this in contrast to Jones or Ryan). He admitted himself that he had to learn first how to use a DSC device – in other words, that he had no experience in that!
      Will find link later if you need that evidence. Was in his interview wit AE911Truth.

  38. If there is anyone on this forum who would like to continue on this circus ride carousel that Jens Schmidt is continuing to offer rides on, I welcome them to respond. For myself I have made it clear that I find his motives disingenuous. I have made it clear that I am not going to argue this topic around and around on every trivial detail that Schmidt can bring up.

    This latest business about Farrer is an example. The fact that Farrer may have been inexperienced in the DSC device is meant to imply that the conclusions of the results are faulty. This conclusion must face head on the acceptance of the conclusion of these studies by world renowned scientists, experts in their fields.

    Again it seems the tell of this tale is divided between scientists who are independent, and willing to confront political authority, and scientists who are beholden to authority and go along to get along.

    As a prime example of this is Millette, the only scientist so far to attempt a rebuttal to the Jones-Harrit paper. Millette was heralded as an independent scientist with no connections to the government by the JREF crowd that hired him to debunk the Bentham paper on thermitic materials in the WTC dust. It turns out however that Millette was working directly for the EPA, and is responsible for papers that led to the announcement that the environment of the WTC cleanup operations were safe. He has been found to have committed some serious criminal acts in this regard. But like anyone involved in the 9/11 cover-up Millette enjoys impunity.

    If anyone wants to go into the details of how Millette’s so-called research on the ‘red-gray chips’ is legitimate or a scam, let them. But this is an old story spun every which way for years now.

    The bottom line here is that the Red & Gray Chips are not paint, they are a sol-gel energetic material. And if anyone wants to prove otherwise there are proper procedures for doing so.
    Making scurrilous arguments against the Jones-Harrit findings on blogs is not going to cut it.

    Schmidt can go on and on here for the rest of the year and beyond, and it will amount to nothing, as it amounts to nothing now. Of course he can pound his chest and hoot his ululations of victory and make claim to all the bananas here. The sorry truth is there are no fruits available here at T&S offered as consolation prizes for fancy tango dances of spinning rhetoric.
    \\][//

    1. @HR1
      The fact that Farrer may have been inexperienced in the DSC device is meant to imply that the conclusions of the results are faulty.
      Wrong.
      I already explained HOW the DSC test was incompetently done and inexpertly interpreted. This needed no recourse to the qualifications of the operator.
      However, noting the inexperience of the experimenter helps to explain WHY the Harrit team acted so incompetently with regard to the entire DSC desaster.
      In my mind, noting Farrer’s inexperience is actually a nice thing – it suggests he merely erred. If he were an experienced DSC user and interpreter, I would have to conclude willful deception.

      the acceptance of the conclusion of these studies by world renowned scientists, experts in their fields
      Surely you can name at least two “world renowned scientists, experts in their fields” who have indicated “acceptance of the conclusion of these studies“, along with the fields that you believe they are experts in? Any forensicist there? Any world renowned thermite expert? Any expert on primer paints?

      Or perhaps, if you can’t actually name two such scientists, you want to retract this fabricated claim, and add it to the list of false claims you were forced to retract🙂

      scientists who are beholden to authority and go along to get along. As a prime example of this is Millette
      Yay, the old “he has found out so many of my false claims, while I could not hold a candle to any of his arguments … what can I do … o right, let’s do a little character assassination instead of arguing the facts of the case!” Classy, HR1🙂

      Millette was heralded as an independent scientist with no connections to the government
      Was he? “With no connections to the government“? Linky please? Or retraction?

      He has been found to have committed some serious criminal acts in this regard.
      Has he? Surely Kevin Ryan, who originated this smear piece, has taken Millette to court over this crime? Court docket, please? After all, Millette’s report reveals that Ryan is the co-author of a fallacious paper?

      You already found out that Kevin Ryan is a most shady character, didn’t you? You place him among the bad, deceptive, perhaps even traitorous folks with regard to the Pentagon story, right?.
      What if Ryan has been out to discredit the Truth Movement from the very beginning? Could you perhaps be falling for the lure of a liar? I think you are!
      Be more critical, HR1!

      the Red & Gray Chips are not paint, they are a sol-gel energetic material
      You keep saying this, but have no evidence. Please present your evidence, or retract!
      Worse still: You don’t even understand the very sentence you wrote there.
      You don’t know what “sol-gel” is, otherwise you would not write such stupid phrases as “they are a sol-gel energetic material“, “various known sol-gels that they compared against their own material“, “the brisance of the military sol-gel“, “sol-gels with exponentially more explosive force“, “sol-gels might have been the only explosives needed“.

      I’ll give you a hint: You seem to think that “sol-gel” is a word for a kind of material.
      No, it isn’t.
      That’s how I know you are talking out of your rear end.
      Why do you talk about “things” (“things” in quotes because “sol-gel” is not a “thing”) that you don’t know at all? Don’t you realize how utterly STUPID you appear?

      there are no fruits available here at T&S
      This may be the only true phrase in your post😉

  39. Who else besides you claims that they “are a sol-gel energetic material”? Tests by Harrit et al. could not differentiate thermite prepared with sol-gel method from prepared with other methods. See Fig 5a in Yi Wang et al. http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf In Fig, 5a heights of peaks are different for different thermites but Harrit et al. could not go by height because they did not have good control of weight of their samples, so height was practically uncalibrated.

    1. “Who else besides you claims that they “are a sol-gel energetic material”? Tests by Harrit et al. could not differentiate thermite prepared with sol-gel method from prepared with other methods. See Fig 5a in Yi Wang et al.”~utu

      Sol-gels are distinguished by the nanoscale characteristics. The difference between macroscale materials and the sol-gels are obvious simply from the VLM photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples.

      Sol-gels are produced by construction of molecules in specific matrix structures, not by mixing macro-scale materials together as thermite and thermate are.

      You site Yi Wang et al, without referencing what is therein that puts you criticism in context.

      And where do you get this notion?
      “Harrit et al. could not go by height because they did not have good control of weight of their samples”~utu

      Are you speaking weight or mass? They distinguished between samples… WTF are you talking about in your post?
      \\][//

      1. @HR1:
        *FACEPALM*
        The list of flat out false blunders you write because you don’t the fuck understand what you are writing about keeps growing and growing. I think you are an intelligent guy – you must sense, at least sometimes, that you don’t know what you are talking. Why do you make such a fool of yourself so often and so consistently? Are YOU perhaps a mole out to make the Truth Movement look dumb, silly and ridiculous?

        Here is your latest blunder:
        Sol-gels are distinguished by the nanoscale characteristics. The difference between macroscale materials and the sol-gels are obvious simply from the VLM photomicrographs of red/gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples.
        Oooh – “nanoscale characteristics” – “VLM photomicrographs” – mighty techy sounding words, bamboozle bamboozle, right?
        VLM is the abbreviation for “Visual Light Microscopy”, and “nanoscale” is commonly understood to be the range from 1 to 100 nm – a particle can be called to be on the “nanoscale” if one or more of its dimensions (width, lenght, thickness) is in that range 1-100 nm.
        Visible light is electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths between 390 and 700 nm. The resolution of any microscope depends on the wavelength of the rays it uses. There is a theoretical limit of resolution for VLM lenses near 200 nm, while in practice, very few VLM microscopes come even near this limit.

        It is therefore flat out IMPOSSIBLE to characterize the “nanoscale characteristics” of any material with VLM.

        Again, hybridrogue1, you spoke out of your rear end and invented claims that you don’t even understand.
        Stop that childish behaviour.

        1. “It is therefore flat out IMPOSSIBLE to characterize the “nanoscale characteristics” of any material with VLM.”

          It is however to characterize microscale characteristics by VLM, and these are clearly NOT microscale products. Thermite and Thermate are microscale products.
          \\][//

          1. Edit the above sentence:

            It is however possible to characterize macroscale characteristics by VLM, and these are clearly NOT macroscale products. Thermite and Thermate are macroscale products.
            \\][//

            1. Okay okay I read this “correction” too late. So for all I care:

              Alright, Einstein: Did Harrit et al examine and describe the macroscale characteristics of the chips using VLM? What were they? Please quote the relevant passages.
              Which of the macroscale characteristics that Harrit et al detected by VLM convince you that the chips are “sol-gel”?🙂 (Remember: The context is still: What is your evidence that the chips are “sol gel”? Or are you hoping you could detract from that question?)

              So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?

            1. No Sock, I meant that thermite and thermate are macroscale products. Superthermite, or Nanothermite are nanoscale sol-gel energetics.
              \\][//

              1. “No Sock, I meant that thermite and thermate are macroscale products. Superthermite, or Nanothermite are nanoscale sol-gel energetics.”

                Nanothermites refer to thermites where either Al and Fe2O3 particles have sizes significantly smaller than 1000nm. Yi Wang tests three nanothermites. Only one of them is made with sol-gel process. The process is described by Yi Wang.

            2. @sp2012:
              Willy said: “Thermite and Thermate are microscale products” Do you mean nanoscale?
              Hahaha this is comedy gold now: sp2012 believes “micro” should be edited to “nano”, hr1 edits to “macro”😀

              Both of you have no clue what you are talking about. You believe Harrit et al on blind faith alone.

          2. @HR1
            This conversation has the entertainment value of a bizarre train wreck.

            It is however to characterize microscale characteristics by VLM
            Alright, Einstein: Did Harrit et al examine and describe the microscale characteristics of the chips using VLM? What were they? Please quote the relevant passages.
            Which of the microscale characteristics that Harrit et al detected by VLM convince you that the chips are “sol-gel”?🙂

            these are clearly NOT microscale products. Thermite and Thermate are microscale products.
            So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?

            1. “So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?”~Schmidt

              That is absolutely right, that is what I am saying.

              You may have noticed that I edited my comment as I needed to insert the word “possible” and realized I had written “micro” rather than “macro”.

              So yes I am saying that the red-gray chips are neither Thermite nor Thermate. They are a nanoscale sol-gel energetic material.

              Why this rhetorical round’about with you? I have been perfectly clear about this from the very start.

              I have long ago lost my patience with your arrogance and flippant insults. I suggest you take a dive off the nearest cliff.
              \\][//

              1. @HR1
                “So you say the chips are not thermite or thermate?”~Schmidt
                That is absolutely right, that is what I am saying.

                Yay! Congratulations! You made a true claim😀

                They are a nanoscale sol-gel energetic material.
                And then this again. *sigh* Why do you refuse to learn?

                What is your evidence that the chips are “sol-gel”? – question is still open.

                At least you quietly dropped this nonsense on stilts that somehow “VLM” and “nanoscale” belong in the same sentence😉

                (Please try to consider the fact that you don’t know what the word “sol-gel” means! It doesn’t mean what you think it means! “Sol-gel” does NOT refer to a kind of material! “Sol-gel” is NOT a thing! Look it up, goddammit! You are still totally, 100% STUPID about “sol-gel” because you don’t even know what the word means! And when you have looked it up and STILL don’t understan it – a virtual certainty – be a wise man and ASK someone who understands to explain it to you!)

                1. “you don’t know what the word “sol-gel” means!”~Schmidt

                  And you Schmidt cannot distinguish between the manufacturing process and the product produced by that process.

                  A sol-gel energetic is the PRODUCT of the sol-gel PROCESS.
                  \\][//

                  1. @HR1
                    And you Schmidt cannot distinguish between the manufacturing process and the product produced by that process.
                    A sol-gel energetic is the PRODUCT of the sol-gel PROCESS.

                    What? No “thank you so much, Schmidt, for alerting me to my continued stupid mistake – following your advice, I finally learned something“? Tsk tsk tsk…

                    Now tell me, what IS the “product of the sol-gel process”?
                    What are the properties of this product?
                    Have Harrit et al looked for these properties?
                    Did they find these properties?
                    How and where?
                    Please point me to the data and the Figures demonstrating those properties, and quote the words by Harrit et al that essentially say “we identified the chips as the product of a sol-gel process because X, Y and Z”!🙂

                    In short: What is your EVIDENCE that the chips are products of a sol-gel process?
                    Not like I haven’t asked for this evidence like half a dozend times already… (you tried with thos stupid VLM nonsense)
                    You have no such evidence, have you, Willy?

      2. HR1: “You site Yi Wang et al, without referencing what is therein that puts you criticism in context.”
        utu: No I wrote See Fig 5a in Yi Wang et al.”. So you ddi not bother to look into Yi Wang. I gave you the link. You did not check what is in Fig 5a.

        HR1: And where do you get this notion?
        “Harrit et al. could not go by height because they did not have good control of weight of their samples”~utu

        Are you speaking weight or mass? They distinguished between samples… WTF are you talking about in your post?
        utu: First of all here on surface of Earth when object is motionless weight and mass is the same thing. Does it surprise you? The weight of the part that actually ignited during DSC was not known precisely. Why do you think in Fig. 30 Harrit et al. has 4 values between 1 and 7 kJ/g from their four samples?

        utu: Over and over again you demonstrate for everybody who cares to read your comments that you have no clue. You brain just does not compute.

        1. “when object is motionless weight and mass is the same thing. Does it surprise you?”
          No that doesn’t surprise me. Mass is the measure of matter in an object- weight is the measure of the pull of gravity on the mass of an object… that is clear enough.

          But what does this have to do with your assertion since Harrit et al. clearly distinguishes between each of their 4 samples and states an average of 1 and 7 kJ/g from them?

          “Over and over again you demonstrate for everybody who cares to read your comments that you have no clue. You brain just does not compute.”~utu

          You and Schmidt seem to think that such asshole ad hominem remarks add mass/weight to your arguments. They don’t, they only show that you are both arrogant pricks.
          \\][//

    2. utu said:

      “Tests by Harrit et al. could not differentiate thermite prepared with sol-gel method from prepared with other methods. See Fig 5a in Yi Wang et al. http://www.ysxbcn.com/down/2014/01_en/36-p0263.pdf

      Nevertheless, they were all identified as Thermite and not paint chips.

      In Fig, 5a heights of peaks are different for different thermites but Harrit et al. could not go by height because they did not have good control of weight of their samples, so height was practically uncalibrated.

      So, where is the graph for paint chips that we can compare it to?

      Do paint chips produce iron spherules when heated?

      What is thermite or any other energetic substance doing in the WTC dust?

      1. At least you looked into Yi Wang unlike HR1. I pointed out to this paper to show to HR1 that there is no way that using DSC Harrit et al. could identify there was sol-gel thermite as opposed to other thermites. Harrit et al. claims are much weaker than what HR1 stated.

        1. “At least you looked into Yi Wang unlike HR1″~utu

          Wrong utu. I in fact have read the entire paper. I of course looked at “Fig 5a”, and I do not see how you can use that as a refutation of the Harrit et al, paper. You point to it as if it is self evident, then you move on to this bullshit about “weight” and do not recognize that Harrit distinguishes between all of his samples, and simply makes an average measurement from them.

          You and your pal Schmidt are good at rhetorical tap dancing a flaming insults, but nothing else.
          Try this on for size: You don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about. You buddy Schmidt doesn’t either.

          You want us to prove that the Harrit et al. report doesn’t prove nanothermitics. AGAIN, it is your responsibility to prove that the red & gray chips are paint.

          Proof by blog commentary is not going to make the grade here kiddies. You are wasting your time, the forum’s time, and my time.
          \\][//

      2. they were all identified as Thermite
        This is the conclusion by Harrit et al, but it doesn’t follow from the data. The conclusion is invalid

        Do paint chips produce iron spherules when heated?
        Harrit et al did not show that the “iron spherules” originated from the red (paint) layer. They did not exclude the possibility that they resulted from phase shifts within the gray (oxidized steel) layer.
        The “iron-rich sphere” shown in Fig 21 looks like a ball of condensed soot with a concentration of hematite pigment. In the upper left part of that image, you can clearly see the 100 nm rhombic grains and 1-2 µm hexagonal platelets – obviouskly unreacted! Since those were heated to 700 °C; at least any elemental Al should have melted (at or under 660 °C) – there is no evidence for that – not in the image, not in any DSC trace.
        In the text, describing the ball in the center of Fig 21, Harrit et al write: “the iron content exceeds the oxygen content by approximately a factor of two“. Approximately? What does “approximately” mean? Would a factor of 1.6 count as “approcimately”? Did they do a standardizing routine for that quantification? If not, the error in that estimate could be substantial – they don’t say. Is that a factor of 2 by weight or by mols? They don’t say! If the former, then the conclusion they draw, “so substantial elemental iron must be present” is flat out wrong: Fe2O3 is 111 g Fe and 48 g O per mol – a very good match for what they measured!

        What is thermite or any other energetic substance doing in the WTC dust?
        No one found thermite.
        There were a lot of “energetic” substances in the WTC debris:
        – Paper
        – Computers
        – Furniture
        – Human remains
        – Paints
        – ….
        ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!

        1. “ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!”~Schmidt

          I hope this idiotic statement is your last Schmidt! I understand your caveat, and the statement is still bullshit.
          \\][//

          1. Theoretical energy density for thermite is 4 kJ/g. But when burning 1g of gasoline in air 10 times more energy is released than when burning 1g of thermite. Gasoline takes oxygen from air but thermite takes it from Fe2O3. So Schmidt might be actually correct that burning some plastic or perhaps even paper may release more energy than when burning thermite per unit weight. What matters is how fast it burns and what temperature it can produce when burning.

            1. “Schmidt might be actually correct that burning some plastic or perhaps even paper may release more energy than when burning thermite per unit weight. What matters is how fast it burns and what temperature it can produce when burning.”~utu

              That is the caveat I mentioned. His assertion is utter rhetorical nonsense on that head.
              \\][//

              1. @HR1:
                What matters is how fast it burns and what temperature it can produce when burning.”~utu
                That is the caveat I mentioned. His assertion is utter rhetorical nonsense on that head.

                Except you didn’t mention it😀

                I am glad you understand now that pointing out that a material is “energetic” just because it produces an exotherm peak in a DSC test is utter rhetorical nonsense.

                So – how fast do the red-gray chips react?😀
                Ooh – flashback,,, that’s where this whole mess started – your assertion that somehow “10.5 W/g” means “twice the brisance” – a stupidly false claim you still haven’t retracted.

                And … what temperature did the chips reach?
                (That is actually an interesting question, to which my answer is only “speculation” as I have no evidence for it – which I, in contrast to a certain someone else, have no trouble admitting)

                1. Allow me to reply in the manner that you do Schmidt;

                  You are an idiot who doesn’t know anything about science. You are bluffing your way through this entire exchange making up shit as you go. You are a liar and will not retract a single lie you have made. You are just a stooge and a shill. And! An arrogant prick as well.
                  \\][//

                  1. @HR1
                    Allow me to reply in the manner that you do Schmidt;
                    You are an idiot who doesn’t know anything about science. You are bluffing your way through this entire exchange making up shit as you go. You are a liar and will not retract a single lie you have made. You are just a stooge and a shill. And! An arrogant prick as well.

                    It is easy to make such statements without argument and evidence. That is the difference between you and me:

                    You are … making up shit as you go
                    Except you haven’t pointed out a single thing I have made up. So far, I have been able to support every claim I made with evince – when asked, and often without being asked.
                    You on the other hand have already been called out on several of your fabrications – and every time, you were not able to support your made-up bullshit with evidence.

                    You are a liar and will not retract a single lie
                    You haven’t pointed out a single lie. This is because nothing I have written in this exchange was wrong, or at least I am not aware of anything wrong.

                    You are just a stooge and a shill.
                    You have no evidence for this accusation.

                    What an extremely poor, pathetic attempt at “tu quoque” of the cheapest kind. I almost start feeling sorry for you.

          2. @HR1
            “ALL of these release more energy when burned than does thermite!”~Schmidt
            I hope this idiotic statement is your last Schmidt! I understand your caveat, and the statement is still bullshit.

            Are you blue in the face while you yell “BULLSHIT”, Willy?😀

            Your problem is that you have no argument to support your “bullshit” claim.

            What I wrote is true:
            Thermite releases less than 4 kJ/g of energy when burned <- TRUE, right?
            Paper and wood release around 15-18 kJ/g when burned <- TRUE, right?
            15 to 18 is more than 4 – <- TRUE, right?
            So paper and wood (furniture) release more energy when burned than does thermite.

            Computers contain a lot of plastic – certainly 20% by weight <- TRUE, right?
            Most plastics have energy densities of 20-40 kJ/g <- TRUE, right?
            20% of that is 4 to 8 kJ/g <- TRUE, right?
            "4 to 8 kJ/g" is more than "under 4 kJ/g" <- TRUE, right?
            So computers release more energy when burned than does thermite.

            Now as for human remains … what are they made of? Fat, meat, other organic substances… these may average 25 kJ/g (fat dominates in Wall Street Americans!) are perhaps 25-30% by weight of the body (most of the rest is water, and some inorganic stuff in teeth and bones).
            Human remains thus average about 6 to 8 kJ/g. That's more than thermites under 4 kJ/g.
            So human remains release more energy when burned than does thermite.

            Is any of that untrue? What? Please be specific, so we can go look for evidence for our respective claims🙂

              1. @HR1:
                My reply to utu is adequate
                Perhaps you should let utu do the arguing for you, if the only way for you to write a sensible reply is to quote utu and blurt “what he said!”😉

              2. Why do the Nutty Professors insist on arguing about thermite on this thread?

                ruffadam said:

                “What is the point of arguing your contentions here where neither Jones or Harrit will respond?”

                Jens Schmidt said:

                “In part, it’s testing how the arguments are received”

                Received by who?…..and what’s the other “part”…..the other reason?

                Wouldn’t it be much more reasonable to see “how the arguments are received” where Jones or Harrit can respond.

                Why, in the name of sanity, would the Nutty Professors choose a thread where the topic is the Pentagon to test “how the arguments are received” about Thermite?

                The obvious motive, just like the Chandler Clan, is to take the conversation off course from discussion of the Pentagon.

                The Pentagon evidence is the most damning of all the 911 evidence because it leads directly to perpetrators with names, faces and titles.

                1. I think it was me who was the first that objected to something HR1 wrote about thermites. This started the whole discussion. Jens Schmidt joined later. If you want to blame somebody for keeping you from Pentagon blame me. It was not my intention though.

                  1. utu said:

                    “I think it was me who was the first that objected to something HR1 wrote about thermites. This started the whole discussion. Jens Schmidt joined later. If you want to blame somebody for keeping you from Pentagon blame me. It was not my intention though”

                    Thank you, utu!

                    So, do you think we could put an end to this Chemical Merry-go-Round?

                    1. I tried already. I posted on November 1, 2015 at 4:47 pm I got one hostile (paranoid) response. It was from you.

                  2. utu said:

                    “I am not familiar with all things that go on within the “truth movement” but I know that there are many conflicts, schisms and secessions”

                    Yes, utu…..that is by design.

                    There are people of different qualities, capabilities and intentions”

                    Especially “intentions”.

                    “Some of them should not belong to that movement but I think it is impossible to weed them out”

                    Yes, it is impossible to weed them out; cognitive infiltrators are a permanent fixture of the Truth Movement…..they always will be.

                    “As far as Pentagon goes it should be emphasized that government did not make a good case to demonstrate that a large plane actually hit Pentagon”

                    What should be emphasized even more is that CIT and Pilots for Truth have made a case that no plane hit the Pentagon…..a case that would be an absolute slam-dunk in any legitimate court of law.

                    “I think that more effort should be put in emphasis on what is wrong with the official narrative”

                    I disagree. utu…..the Chandler/Cole/Legge Clan wants to keep our minds and attention on that, but the best thing legitimate Truth seekers can do is stay focused on what really DID happen at the Pentagon.

                    By doing that, we can easily deduce what’s wrong with the official story….i.e., it’s a complete load of bullcrap!

                    “And it might be useful to offer alternative scenarios (missile or bombs) but it is not necessary”

                    No eye-witness who was in a position to see the Pentagon reports seeing a missile.

                    Pre-planted explosives were used; all of the columns were blown up and outward.

                    “Government did not make the case that large plane hit Pentagon and that is it”

                    No, utu…..that’s not “it”.

                    What is infinitely more important is that “the government” staged all the evidence:

                    The light poles, the generator trailer, the fireball…..all staged…..who staged it?

                    That is the most important question.

                    1. “What is infinitely more important is that “the government” staged all the evidence:” – Yes, that is one way to show that the official version is false. But there is not direct proof that the evidence was staged that I know of. I must believe that it was staged if I exclude large plane. And I tend to agree with arguments analyzing debris and the damage to the building that there was no big plane. It would be great t find videos showing some guys bending poles but we do not have it.

            1. Jens Schmidt said:

              “What I wrote is true:
              Thermite releases less than 4 kJ/g of energy when burned <- TRUE, right?
              Paper and wood release around 15-18 kJ/g when burned <- TRUE, right?
              15 to 18 is more than 4 – <- TRUE, right?
              So paper and wood (furniture) release more energy when burned than does thermite"

              Makes sense to me.

              Hydrogen is very flammable and explosive: see Hindenburg disaster.

              Oxygen is very flammable and explosive.

              If you combine the two…..can you imagine the danger?

              If you're foolish enough to double the Hydrogen…..you've got a recipe for disaster!

              Beware of Dihydrogenmonoxide!

              1. @SP2012
                Makes sense to me.
                Can you write a response without silly sarcasm?
                What was wrong with what I wrote?
                I did not, as your silly 2H+O simile suggests, mistake fuels for their oxides.

                Do you say that paper, wooden furniture, computers, human remains or paints do NOT release more energy upon burning than even ideal thermite?

  40. Now the bottom line here, the one that Schmidt should sit his arrogant ass on; is that there is nothing he can accomplish here as an adequate rebuttal to the Jones-Harrit paper- If and until he gathers his junk science together in a paper and attempts to publish it to present to the scientific community oft referred to as the Truth movement.

    All of his scurrilous efforts here are in vain.

    \\][//

    1. @HR1
      All of his scurrilous efforts here are in vain.
      Quite possibly.
      And so are your scurrilous efforts here at trying to hold a candle to me – and failing badly.

      1. Others have asked, but [no reply has come forward from you, Jens. What is it exactly that you are after? Why are you discussing extreme technicalities here with people who are obviously and admittedly not engineers or scientist? Why here? How exactly is this discussion “testing” your scientific chops about the subject matter. How come you are wasting your “genius” on a page like this?

        And… One more time: Why do you feel compelled to be such a giant douchebag?

        Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post. Do you not realize how much credibility you are losing with your behavior and asinine “gotcha” comments? Do you talk to your students like this? How about your peers? Friends?

        1. Lilaleo said:

          “And… One more time: Why do you feel compelled to be such a giant douchebag?

          Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post. Do you not realize how much credibility you are losing with your behavior and asinine “gotcha” comments? Do you talk to your students like this? How about your peers? Friends?”

          That is precisely why I “advised” Willy to answer Schmidt with…..”Nuh uhh”

          The book of Etiquette says:

          Always answer arrogant Douchebags with “Nuh uhh”, or “Huh?”

        2. Lilaleo,

          strangely, I didn’t see you complaining about HR1 being such a dick and douchebag when I first posted here, trying to correct mistakes and answer challenges in a cool, concentrated and sober way. How he fought to derail the debate! What names he called me!

          Where were you then?
          Or perhaps you have resigned to HR1’s douchbaggery a long time ago?

          I have been reading this blog on and off for a few months, perhaps a year now. So far I was under the impression that mostly the discussion was high-level, well informed and intelligent. That assessment expressedly includes HR1, who generally came across to me as an educated, well-versed person, even when he was a dick abusing people not sharing his beliefs.

          Because that’s what it is – people have beliefs, and they bend their arguments and their facts to match their beliefs. The same intelligent and educated person can be spot-on with one claim, and totally nuts with the next. Perceptive and subtle with one, and blind to the elephant in the room a minute later.

          I think some of the main proponents of the “plane flew NoC and over the Pentagon” are as intelligent, and as honest, as some of the main proponents of the “plane flew SoC and into the Pentagon by remote control” theory. They accuse each other of being shills, detractors, moles, whatever.
          This is a very interesting topic to me.
          Similar things can be said about the various claims concerning the WTC collapses – nanothermite, DEW, nukes… I do not think that any of those “schools” is set up by the enemy or only populated with assholes or lunatics.

          Generally speaking, I find that almost all of these researchers are way outside of their fields – they are almost all amateurs in what they are doing.
          And so am I!

          And yes, Harrit and Jones are amateurs when it comes to forensic research, Farrer is an amateur in thermal testing, Legge and Chandler are amateurs in the field of … whatever the fields are that apply to researching the Pentagon incident. MacQueen and Griffin obviously are amateurs in every discipline of “9/11 research”. McKee is. AE911Truth boasts 2350 or whatever “experts”, their booklets and technical briefs however are written by a lawyer, a carpenter, a business student, a journalist. Ever wonder why that is?

          The 9/11 researcher nearest to being an expert that I can think of and have read a bit about is Tony Szamboti, although a mechanical engineer is not a forensic structural engineer. He happens to disagree with the Chandler mantra of “freefall at WTC7 means explosives on perimeter columns”, and I think Szamboti is right – and Chandler, and practically everyone at AE911Truth and in the larger 9/11 Truth community, is wrong about that (not saying there weren’t explosives at WTC7, just that “freefall” is no proof if it).

          I have studied Harrit et al. I have discussed it with chemists, with a structural engineer and an architect who both know a bit about structural steel coatings. I have communicated with a couple of experts in XEDS for months before I felt reasonably competent to discuss the basics of it. I have studied papers on inorganic pigments and their mineral precursors. I have seen pretty much all of the “nanothermite” papers out there. I have read training materials of a DSC manufacturer. I am privy to a few private conversations with Harrit, Jones, Farrer, Ryan, Basile and Griscom about the red-gray chips. I have myself contacted Farnsworth. I have looked at all the data by Harrit et al, additional data by Jones, by Farrer, by Harrit, all the data so far released by Mark Basile, the Millette study, a study by Henry-Couannier – all on red-gray WTC chips. I have read blogs and debates between the authors and some of their critics, I have listened to hours of interviews.

          Farrer says that Millette’s chips look precisely like his own, and Millette has identified the composition of those chips completely: No thermite whatsoever. This is the shortest story that I can tell about the chips. Harrit et al is refuted absolutely.
          The next shortest story is the competent appraisal of the Harrit et al DSC data, which shows very clearly that the exotherm is NOT a thermite reaction – 95% to 100% of the energy MUST come from organic combustion. This, too, kills the Harrit et al paper totally, without hope of resurrection.

          The story here is that Harrit et al is a hopelessly flawed paper, it is absolutely CRAP – and yet, after more than 6 years, it seems that no Truther has lost faith in Harrit or Jones over that hoax! What does that tell us about the movement? -> It is faith based.

          I think there prevails the same attitude that you can see exemplary in HR1: People are intelligent and can be critical, but the moment certain core beliefs are challenged, all pretense of critical or scientific thinking goes overboard: Because the chips are not paint, facts firmly in evidence and natural laws must be false. Premises are derived from conclusions.

          Because no plane hit the Pentagon, any evidence must be faked. Because a plane hit the Pentagon, the witnesses must have been manipulated. Because there were explosives at WTC7, NIST are traitors. Because the twins were demolished, Jowenko is a patsy of the government, buying the Jewish MSM yarn hook, line and sinker. Because WTC7 was a CD, the Mossad killed Jowenko. Because Mineta said AA77 was approaching while he was in the bunker, all radar data, TV recordings, photographs of the Vice President, Secret Service logs and a dozend other testimonies must be faked. Actually, because Cheney is a naughty naughty boy, Mineta is right and inerrant and everyone else lies.

          There is a new star in the Truth skies over Europe – Johann Kalari, self-proclaimed civil engineer and “explosives master”. He saw the light a year ago or so and now speaks to everyone who couldn’t climb up a tree at the count of three. He is amazing: 2 of 3 claims of fact he utters are flat-out false – he misrepresents the claims he tries to sell. I think he is stupid, not impostor. When I alert him to all his mistakes – his standard reply is not to reject my correction, but to maintain that it doesn’t matter whether his claims are true, as long as we agree that the US government demolished the towers. This guy has opened a group on Facebook that has quickly grown to 4000+ members since summer. Every other day, some member posts an old hoax – Kalari never catches the hoax, and when alerted, doesn’t mind, as long as the hoax has a message of “Inside Job!”. People post Judy-Wood nonsense, nuke nonsense – Kalari doesn’t mind, as long as the message is “government bad – truth movement good”.

          This movement is pathological.

          And HR1 shows some interesting symptoms.

          What was the question again? Ah, right
          What is it exactly that you are after?
          Someone was wrong on the internet, and still is.

          Utu, here, seems to be very knowledgeable as well. And, s/he has also argued for some of the same points, without the douchebaggery that you project in every single post.
          utu has actually learned something here – has asked questions and accepted, after critical examination, some of the answers. I think utu doesn’t perceive my posting with him as douchebaggery – I respect him (or her?), he/she respects me. Why? Because we understand what the other understands.

          Contrast this with HR1. Did you notice the many false claims he makes?
          Did you notice how he neither presents evidence when pressed, nor retracts most of the false claims?
          Notice how he insults me, smears me, smears other, in lieu of arguments?
          THAT, my friend, is douchebaggery. “As you call into the forest, thus it will sound back”.

          1. To Jens Schmidt

            Individua like HR1 are self appointed enforcers of core beliefs dogma. They are good at intimidation and impervious to arguments based on logic and facts. Their ignorance is actually of great help in doing their job. Accomplishments and talents of Zdhanov or Beria come to mind. Arguing with them can demonstrate to onlookers how dense and shameless they can be but it never causes any cracks in their beliefs.

            You are casting pearls…But why are you doing it is not clear to me. You cannot draw much satisfaction by defeating your inferiors. Certainly you have acquired lots of knowledge on subjects related to 9/11 and you have good writing skills. Why not use it for a constructive project in which you explain what in your opinion evidence shows and what conclusions can be drawn from the evidence and what extra evidence would be needed to demonstrate thesis A or B? Also an article explaining common mistakes in reasoning and data interpretation people make would be useful. What do you actually believe after your analyses? The are several camps. Each is populated by the believers in one particular dogma, though they do not see themselves as believers but as knowers. They actually believe that their beliefs is the state of knowing at which you arrive by a rational process. The smallest of all possible camps is the camp of skeptics who profess that they actually do not know. As a skeptic you are attacked by everybody. There was no room for skeptics during 30 Year War or during the Civil War. Are you a skeptic or one of the believers?

            1. @utu:
              I am warming up to the idea of writing a paper, or a series of papers, and this feels more and more like a dress rehearsal.

            2. This is such a big letdown, Mr. Schmidt… I was so ready and willing to put aside your attitude issues and respect you for your brain and knowledge, but, after all the technical and “scientific” discourse, it just turns out that you are an intelligent, very knowledgable, but, at the same time, an unbearably shallow man. Your big excuse for the abrasive attitude you displayed here is “he did it first, how come you don’t call him a douchebag”???

              So, all this nonsense about sol-gels and schmol-gels that you had us read through, was nothing but a bar-fight you intentionally picked for some personal agenda that seems to come from a place of childish insecurity on your part. Someone else a little more comfortable in his skin, and more confident of his science might have argued the same points, with the same exact data points, in a much more level-headed and productive manner, winning the readers’, including HR1’s, respect at the end of it all. Now wouldn’t that have been swell? Oh well… Instead, since you felt he was “being a dick” to you, you went ahead and decided to show us all that you can be a much bigger dick. Just imagine how much negative (human) energy we could have been spared if you had written what you wrote in your post that I am replying to from the get go, presented your position on the papers/studies that you cite, given your credentials as you just did…

              HR1 is a known entity here, and stands tall on top of a mountain of his own words, available for all to see and read all over the Internet, and agree, disagree or rebut should they choose to do so. I can’t speak for everyone, but I can easily say even those of us who have occasionally been on the receiving end of his linguistic-ninja moves have eventually, through the test of time, learned to like and respect him for all that he is… Not for all that he is not. I genuinely hope that you would stick around long enough to earn the same.

              So, if we take away all the mutual insults you two have exchanged and just look at the substance, what have we accomplished here? Or, rather, what have you accomplished? Showed us that we can neither prove or disprove the flakes are paint chips or that they are not paint chips??? Whoop deedoo!!! I could have saved both of you (and utu) a lot of time and told you this from the get go. We can’t prove or disprove a plane hit pentagon, prove or disprove mineta was telling the truth, prove or disprove , beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plane flew north of Citgo any more than we can prove it was not Bizarro Superman who did it all with his DEW eyes. Proving others’ work wrong is easy… Show us how you can prove your own to be right!

              Which brings us to what I would consider are major misconceptions you seem to have about the so called truth movement. You correctly point out that most people involved in 9/11 research are amateurs, but fail to recognize the absurdity of this phenomenon in the arguably most technologically advanced nation on earth, and the reasons for it being so. You moan about how unsound the science behind the claims made by the people who cared to do work on the subject, without recognizing the twisted alternate reality of our times which either prevents, persuades or scares 99.9% of more capable scientists from asking very simple questions which may or may not have answers that contradict the official narrative. And while you talk about “people” with broad brush strokes and generalizing them, you seem to be unaware that you, yourself, are part of a different group of “people” who can’t seem to recognize the human factor to the shortcomings while they suffer from a different set of shortcomings themselves.

              But, perhaps more importantly, you seem to treat the ‘movement’ as if it were a level-field scientific and forensic research endeavor, while we have a few pathetic grams of flakes out of hundreds of thousands of tons of WTC and Pentagon building material and dust, almost zero funds, lack of access to evidence, witnesses, cutting edge equipment and facilities to carry out any experiments, or the support of accomplished scientists and engineers who’d be well capable of producing some pretty conclusive evidence at least on some of the issues discussed. Not to mention the fact that the movement operates against a well oiled, military grade propaganda and cover up operation that functions with unlimited funds, absolute impunity and lack of accountability, and under the protective umbrella of the technocratic power structure, their military, intelligence agencies, news organizations, gatekeepers and an army of shills and trolls and moles, some of whom seem to have, by hook or by crook, plopped themselves at the highest (so to speak) levels of the movement.

              I am assuming it is clear to most people here that you have an impressive intellect and IQ points to match (Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how I would describe HR1.) The question then becomes what you will do with these qualities of yours. If your purpose is to disprove some widely held ‘beliefs’, scientific or otherwise, within the movement, I’d say don’t bother. It’s a forgone conclusion. You can comfortably assume that at least half of the evidence and so-called scientific conclusions were purposefully inserted into the mix by agents, moles and charlatans, and the other half is seriously lacking sound science and professional forensics as they are guided by emotions and prejudices. Even then, as many people here have pointed out, the onus is on the manufacturers of the official narrative to prove what they are saying is the truth… Which, they can accomplish extremely easily by producing a video of the plane crashing into Pentagon, by making evidence and key witnesses from all levels of government available to researchers and investigators, etc. etc. The truth about the lies we have been fed is not within the paint chips, but in the pudding we have been served, and its tangy, rancid flavor of cover up.

              The direct consequences of 9/11 has brought the world to a third world war in 14 years, and many millions have died, and many more will die in the next decade. For those of us who see the events in their historical context as opposed to seeing it as a scientific puzzle to be solved following error-free processes, and those of us who have spent years observing and analyzing the cover up, it’s size and its scope, feel that the exact science behind the collapses is far from being essential to identify the parties involved in this massive false-flag event perpetrated on not just the Americans, but the whole entire world. And, it is currently still in progress.

              I’m glad to see that you are leveling off your attitude and stating you might write “a paper or a series of papers”. I would strongly urge you and encourage you to do so. But do not be fooled into believing this here was a dress rehearsal. It was anything, but, as there are no real scientists here to call you up on your arguments. It was totally the wrong venue. I don’t need to be a scientist to be able to recognize that fact.

              What you choose to do with your intellect and IQ points is your business. But, what you have displayed here feels very misguided, immature, trivial, cocky, unwise, obnoxious, and outright a waste of your own time, as well as ours. So, if I may quote you, “THAT, my friend is douchebaggery.” It is sad, because you seem to be well capable of doing so much better, which, personally, was what I was hoping for. After all, good minds are hard to find, and it’s a shame to see it wasted.

              ——–

              (One last thing… Just because I can’t resist asking… Were you the forest, or was HR1 in your little proverb there?)

              1. @Lilaleo
                Long post read and acknowledged. You are right about a few things, even while I disagree with a few other things. Thanks.

                you have an impressive intellect and IQ points to match (Which, by the way, is pretty much exactly how I would describe HR1.)
                I expressed that myself when I wrote “mostly the discussion was high-level, well informed and intelligent. That assessment expressedly includes HR1, who generally came across to me as an educated, well-versed person…

                (One last thing… Just because I can’t resist asking… Were you the forest, or was HR1 in your little proverb there?)
                Yes, I would have been the forest in my use of that proverb that HR1 would have been calling into.

          2. “The story here is that Harrit et al is a hopelessly flawed paper, it is absolutely CRAP – and yet, after more than 6 years, it seems that no Truther has lost faith in Harrit or Jones over that hoax! What does that tell us about the movement? -> It is faith based.”
            That is an odd generalized observation about “Truthers” and an odd conclusion about “the movement”.
            The 2001 events were a Psyop. If the explanation of these events, provided by the apparatus of the US state is accurate, it was a Psyop of unclear strategic value to the alleged perpetrators. If it was a Psyop conducted by the Deep State apparatus of the United States, it’s strategic value is immediately apparent: the Patriot Act, the propaganda campaign to link the events to Baathist Iraq, conflation of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians with US foreign policy in other middle-eastern states, andgrowth of US Special Forces operations across the globe, among numerous other results.
            Harrit’s paper may well be incompetent, and I find no fault with your analysis of the methodology and conclusions of the paper, but I fail to see how that leads directly to the conclusion that failing to accept the official explanation of the events is an act of faith.

            1. @Clyde
              That is an odd generalized observation about “Truthers” and an odd conclusion about “the movement”.
              My perception – it may be different from yours, and it may be inaccurate, but it is my perception – is that within the truth movement, there are only two groups of people who reject Harrit et al’s “nanothermite” findings:
              – People pushing “exotic” theories about the WTC destructions – DEW, nukes, that lot
              – People who believe all the death and destruction was caused by planes hijacked by Arab terrorists – as the official theory says – but that was consciously allowed and enabled by government agencies. The abbreviation “LIHOP” roughly describes that group.
              The mainstream of the Truth Movement believes there was explosive demolition, and within that mainstream, Harrit et al stands unopposed and almost sacrosanct.
              Same goes with the Chandler-mantra “freefall at WTC7 proves explosives on perimeter walls“.
              Would you agree or disagree?

              There is a lot of intelligence and even technical expertise assembled in that mainstream – and yet no one sees through the bogus!

              This raises an important question to me:
              WHY are all these people incapable of seeing the errors in fact and logic?
              It puts into doubt the epistemology that all these people apply.

              Harrit’s paper may well be incompetent … I fail to see how that leads directly to the conclusion that failing to accept the official explanation of the events is an act of faith.
              This is taking my statement farther than I intended. There are “schools” of thought in the movement, offering (partial) alternative explanations – such as nukes, DEW, nanothermite. I didn’t mean to say that “failing to accept the official explanation” is an act of faith, but rather that believing in those partial alternative explanations is. Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?

              1. Jens Schmidt said:

                “Do you know any truthers who have not at least some faith in nanothermite OR nukes OR DEWs? Despite all of these being bogus?”

                Conversely:

                “Do you know any cognitive infiltrators who don’t have FANATICAL faith in Caveman Highjackers, AND 3,000 degree office fires AND paint chips from Hell?”

    2. Jens Schmidt said:

      “And so are your scurrilous efforts here at trying to hold a candle to me – and failing badly”

      Willy, I don’t want to sound like I’m telling you what to do…..I’m just offering some advice that has always worked for me.

      When Jens Schmidt says you can’t hold a candle to him…..just say:

      “Nuh uhh”

      It works for me all the time…..try it!

      1. @SP2012:
        HR1 is at that level already.
        Even below.
        Saying “Nuh uhh” has the advantage of saving him from adding yet another stupidity on the large pile of false claims he hasn’t retracted in this thread😉

        Today I have been posting mainly for the entertainment value of seeing HR1 stumble from one failure to the next to the next.

        This, while I am waiting for ruffadam to hopefully post links and sources where Jones and Harrit addressed this argument “about the red/grey chips being paint“.

      2. WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT
        Niels Harrit, May 09

        “It has been suggested, that the red/grey chips discovered in the dust from the WTC
        collapse could originate from rust-inhibiting paint (primer paint) applied to the steel beams in the towers. This letter compares the elemental composition and the thermal stability of the two materials based on the description of the protective paint in the NIST report and observations on the red/grey chips.”

        primer_paint_Niels_Harrit%20(3).pdf
        \\][//

        1. @HR1
          WHY THE RED/GRAY CHIPS ARE NOT PRIMER PAINT
          Niels Harrit, May 09

          Thanks for bringing this very valuable letter into the debate. I assume that, by introducing it, you are ready to debate it?
          http://ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/primer_paint_Niels_Harrit.pdf
          Very well then!

          Question #1: Have you read that letter completely?
          Question #2: Have you understood the arguments in it? I.e. can you summarize all its major premises, its reasoning, and its conclusions?
          Question #3: Have you checked the premises, the sources and the math? Are they all correct?

          I can answer these questions for myself:
          #1 Yes,
          #2 Yes and yes
          #3 Yes, and no, the premises are FALSE, the sources have been misread by Harrit, and his math is faulty.

          What are your answers? Or do you want me to explain my answers to you?

    1. Dr. Jens Ejbye Schmidt…
      Fascinating – I have a namesake (if we ignore the middle name)

      earned his PhD in Environmental Biotechnology in 1993 … He is currently a full professor in Chemical Engineering…
      Wow! I am flattered that you think I might be a full professor in Chemical Engineering, working on organic fuels! Did I impress you this profoundly?

      You don’t have to feel such awe – I really have no PhD, I really have not studied chemistry or any related science, and I really am not a professor! I really am just an autodidact, an amateur in the field of forensic science, just like you, Harrit or Jones!
      Which means: You can learn all this stuff, too! You just have to really want it!

      1. “Did I impress you this profoundly?”~Schmidt

        No, Lol, I would be profoundly disappointed if a scientist of this caliber were to engage in the utter bullshit you have spewed here. It was a name I came up with sometime before, We went through that discussion about “you having a lab” and all that.

        I was reminded again by someone by email that this scientist with your name (sans the middle) exists.

        So you can honk, squeal, and oink freely knowing that no one is going to think you are this distinguished scientist. Hoot on!
        \\][//

    1. @HR1
      9/11 WTC-chips are not paint and produce a thermite reaction: Dr. James Millette is wrong
      http://www.youtube.com/embed/9F3xMOoPoYk?version=3&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&showinfo=1&iv_load_policy=1&wmode=transparent

      I am coming to my last replies and won’t comment on the video fully. I expect it to be a repeat of the Harrit letter “Why the paint chips aren’t paint chips” and repeat its mistakes.

      Just a comment / question concerning the first few seconds where Harrit says:

      You have a plastic matrix, and in it, you have, very finely dispersed, aluminium and iron oxide
      Question: Is that a description of a material produced with a sol-gel process? Yes or no?

      Question: Can a plausible red primer paint be adequately described as
      a plastic matrix, and in it, you have, very finely dispersed, aluminium silicate and iron oxide
      Yes or no?

      1. Can paint chips react like the red-grey chip reacted in the experiment done by Mark Basile in the video that HR1 posted?

        The answer is “No”.

        So, what about “Jens Schmidt’s” endless nonsense that tries to prove otherwise?

        Let’s hear it from Richard Feynman:

        1. @SP2012
          Can paint chips react like the red-grey chip reacted in the experiment done by Mark Basile in the video that HR1 posted? The answer is “No”.
          How do you know?
          What experiment did you do to come up with that answer?
          I would say that, since Basile obviously DID burn a paint chip there, paint CAN react like that!
          I mean, what Basile burned there was >70% by weight hydrocarbon, <1.7% Aluminium, wasn't it? How can you believe this is "thermitic" when there is so much binder, so little Al?

            1. @rediscover911com
              Iron sperules were not produced by the Basile studies, were they?
              You contradict yourself in the very next sentence:
              Iron sperules were produced by combusting the red/gray chips.

              Perhaps you mean Basile didn’t produce iron-rich spherules when burning paint? Probably – likely. I never claimed that it is the paint (the red layer) that produces the iron-rich spherules. I believe they come from heating the gray layer (oxidized iron).

              Anyway, let’s look at Basile’s entire presentation. He starts talking about his work on red-gray chips a bit before the 30 minutes mark:

              At 30:00 minutes, he shows a VLM image of chip #13. This is the chip that he later shows burning in the video.

              At 39:30 minutes, he shows the XEDS plot of the red layer of this chip #13. He finds it is only about 1.3 to 1.7% by weight Aluminium, has about the same amount of Silicon, and 1.7 to 2.6% Iron. It has, however, >70% Carbon! Since the carbon can’t be elemental (the would be either intensely black then, or diamond), it surely is bound – mostly with oxygen and with hydrogen (the latter generally doesn’t show in XEDS) – it is a hydrocarbon. Hydrocarbons typically have densities of around or under 1 g/cm^3, while thermite would average about 4 g/cm^3. If you assume a perfect mix of iron oxide and aluminium, and do your math right, you will find that the chip would contain under 5% by weight thermite and ober 80% by weight hydrocarbon. Applying the densities, that means the chip would be only about 1% by volume thermite. Applying specific energies for thermite (under 4 kJ/g) and typical organic binders (at least 20 kJ/g), you will find that the thermite could contribute under 0.2 kJ/g to an exotherm (5% of 4 kJ/g), while the organic matrix would contribute 16 kJ/g or more (80% of 20 kJ/g). So thermite would contribute less than 1.25% of the total energy of combustion.

              At 41:42, the video clip of chip #13 burning begins. Remember: 99% or more of the heat released in that video MUST have come from organic combustion! Unless you want to claim that Basile’s XEDS results are wrong.

              At 43:00: VLM of same chip #13 after burning – it looks charred, proving that indeed much of the organic matrix did react.

              At 43:07, a VLM image at higher resolution of some of the ash he collected from the same chip #13:
              The first thing you should notice is that, as in Harrit et al’s experiments, there is still a lot of red material left – the 2.6% iron with oxide didn’t even react to completion, further lowering the maximum possible contribution of a hypothetical thermite reaction!
              The second thing to notice is that the “iron droplets” are surprisingly large – it is difficult to discern what length the scale marke “200 µm” refers to, but it appears that several of these droplets are on that order of magnitude: A couple of hundred micrometers long. For a chip that started out only a dozen by two dozen hundreds of µm, that is a very significant percentage of the entire volume, especially considering that that less than 1% of the volume of the red layer would have been thermite, according to the XEDS data. With elemental iron being almost twice as dense as thermite, and iron being only 50% of the residue of the thermite reaction, the iron residue shoule be no more that 0.25% of the original volume of the red layer. That volume was approximately 1.6 mm x 2.1 mm x 0.05 mm = 0.168 cubic mm. 0.25% of that would be 0.00042 cubic mm. That is the maximum amount of elemental iron that would be possible if ALL the iron oxide in the red layer was involved in a perfect thermite reaction.
              0.00042 cubic mm could form a cube of 75 micrometers in each dimension. Four of the five droplets that Basile points to appear larger than that. It is therefore impossible that the droplets formed from the iron in the red layer!
              The third thing you should notice is that never accounts for the gray layer after burning. What happened to it? Where did it go? What does it look like?
              There is an obvious answer: The larger “iron droplets” formed from the gray layer, not the red paint!

              At 46:30, he shows a VLM of some particles, and at 47:00 a SEM image and corresponding elemental make-up from XEDS of the smaller particle in the center of 46:30. What do we have? 53% iron and 21.3% oxygen, or 2.5:1 by weight. That’s awfully close to the theoretical 2.33:1 you’d expect for fully oxidized iron (Fe2O3). Plus a good 8% of C, and 5 and 8% for Al and Si, respectively. Plus some Ca, Cr, and other bits and pieces. What’s this? Mostly iron oxide and aluminium silicate, with a good bit of soot. Best explanation would be that this did form from the paint. Too bad he didn’t zoom in with the SEM to show the nanoscale – I have little doubt we would see the familiar rhombic 100 nm iron oxide pigments and one of those kaolin (Si-Al-O) platelets.
              Why didn’t Basile show one of the larger droplets? I have little doubt they have little to no Al+Si, and instead would reveal about 1% Mn.

              Why doesn’t he show XEDS for the gray layer before and after? Harrit et al’s gray layer XEDS for chips a-d clearly has a small but significant hump at 5.9 keV, the K-alpha value of manganese – the gray layer is structural steel.

              You have ignored this, Jens Schmidt
              I have ignored nothing. You see, I know and understand ALL of his results – they actually contradict his conclusions.

                  1. @rediscover911com
                    In the very long reply by Jens Schmidt, he evades the iron spherules creation that Basile did not observe when testing paint.
                    Why do you lie? I wrote:

                    Perhaps you mean Basile didn’t produce iron-rich spherules when burning paint? Probably – likely. I never claimed that it is the paint (the red layer) that produces the iron-rich spherules. I believe they come from heating the gray layer (oxidized iron).

                    Then comes a lot of explanation, some math, to estimate the max possible volume of iron that the red layer could produce if it contained thermite.
                    I compare that to the volume of the spherules:

                    0.00042 cubic mm. That is the maximum amount of elemental iron that would be possible if ALL the iron oxide in the red layer was involved in a perfect thermite reaction.
                    0.00042 cubic mm could form a cube of 75 micrometers in each dimension. Four of the five droplets that Basile points to appear larger than that. It is therefore impossible that the droplets formed from the iron in the red layer!
                    The third thing you should notice is that never accounts for the gray layer after burning. What happened to it? Where did it go? What does it look like?
                    There is an obvious answer: The larger “iron droplets” formed from the gray layer, not the red paint!

                    Bolding is original. Both bolded phrases contain mentions of the iron droplets – even if you only scanned my post, you could not have missed that I did in fact discuss at length the iron spherules!

                    I go on to explain why some of the smaller droplets may still be from paint.

                    So why did you lie?

                    Basile doesn’t tell us what paint he tested, and I doubt he tested paint on spalled steel – with a gray layer. So what there to address? No data, no source, just an unsupported claim!

                    He compared apples and bananas to an unnamed different fruit. What a stupid thing to do!

                1. (1) Yes
                  (2) Mostly, yes

                  (1) is rather straightforward. Just look at Fig 6 in Harrit et al. Millette found essentially the same elemental distribution (traces of C, Mn and Al), and identifies the material as structural stell.

                  (2) is a little more problematic as I cannot actually explain the exact processes that form these shapes, but at least in Basile’s images, there is simply too much of this roundish stuff to explain it as residue of the iron the red layer – and, again, neither Harrit nor Basile show or discuss what happens with the gray layer. It’s the huge elephant in the room that they ignore.

                    1. @utu
                      “I do not see how you can explain the process. Melting? Too low temperature w/o thermitic reaction.”
                      No, probably not melting
                      Harrit et al heated their chips to 700 °C, exposing the gray layer to gasses off of a decomposing organic substance. We can only guess if perhaps CO or benzene was present to reduce some of the iron oxide.
                      Also, there will be phase changes, as perhaps Fe3O3 further oxidizes, hydroxides are pushed out, or, later, Fe2O3 is heat-reduced to FO.

                      Bottom line: I can’t explain the round shapes, but neither can Harrit et al. There was too little thermite, if any, to reach bulk temperatures sufficient to even melt the gray layer.

          1. “Jens Schmidt” ….. no, not that Jens Schmidt ….. the “other” “Jen Schmidt” said:

            “Bla..bla..bla…bla…bla!”

            Lilaleo asked:

            “Others have asked, but no reply has come forward from you, Jens.

            1. What is it exactly that you are after?

            2. Why are you discussing extreme technicalities here with people who are obviously and admittedly not engineers or scientist?

            3. Why here?

            4. How exactly is this discussion “testing” your scientific chops about the subject matter.

            5. How come you are wasting your “genius” on a page like this?”

            Enquiring minds want to know. “Jens”

            Your head seems large enough to hold an incredible amount of brains.

            Do you think you might be able to muster up enough brain power to answer those five simple questions….hmmm?

            1. I have to wonder if “our” Jens Schmidt watched the same video of Harrit, with the last part showing Mark Basile’s experiment.

              First Harrit clearly explains why the aluminum is so scarce and how it is separated from the silicon – both of which are in minute quantities after the the chip is burned. And he explains why this is indicative of elemental aluminum.

              Moving on to Basiles, experiment which clearly shows a thermitic reaction which results in the production of iron spheroids, and explains why they are not perfect globes due to containment within the shell of the chip.

              Now why does this need to be explained over again to someone who actually watched and absorbed this video?
              \\][//

              1. Willy said:

                “Now why does this need to be explained over again to someone who actually watched and absorbed this video?”

                It wouldn’t need to be explained over and over again to a sincere truth seeker

              2. Sock,

                Jens, despite his claims, clearly does not understand the sol-gel process nor the products thus produced. The polymer shell is the bulk of such a product, with cells inside that hold and bind the various elements inside of it as a shell, or casing. This is why there is so much polymer compared to the other elements.

                It is clear from the video section of Basile’s experiment that there is a thermitic reaction producing iron spheroids. Primer paint would not produce these iron spheres.

                This mindless carousel has become too aggravating to bear. Schmidt has one choice left, that is to take his junk science and put it in a paper and distribute it to the group of scientists he is attempting to debunk and await the laughter.
                \\][//

                1. Willy said:

                  “Schmidt has one choice left, that is to take his junk science and put it in a paper and distribute it to the group of scientists he is attempting to debunk and await the laughter”

                  I don’t think “Schmidt’s” paper would merit laughter…..maybe some giggles at the most.

                2. Willy said:

                  “It is clear from the video section of Basile’s experiment that there is a thermitic reaction producing iron spheroids. Primer paint would not produce these iron spheres”

                  That’s right, Willy, but when I mentioned that to “Schmidt”, here was his answer:

                  @SP2012
                  “Can paint chips react like the red-grey chip reacted in the experiment done by Mark Basile in the video that HR1 posted? The answer is “No”.”

                  “How do you know?
                  What experiment did you do to come up with that answer?
                  I would say that, since Basile obviously DID burn a paint chip there, paint CAN react like that!”

                  I’m pretty sure “Schmidt’s” claims are unfalsifiable.

                  So, “gotcha!”

              3. @HR1
                I have to wonder if “our” Jens Schmidt watched the same video of Harrit, with the last part showing Mark Basile’s experiment.
                I sure had watched both presentation – both Harrit’s and Basile’s entire presentations, before. I just discussed Basile’s entire presentation on his red-gray chip work here:
                https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/credibility-of-ae911truth-co-opted-to-push-pentagon-plane-impact/#comment-36814
                Bottom line: Basile shows there is both too little Aluminium and too little Iron in the red layer to account for the heat release or the volume of the “iron spherules” (which, no doubt, are iron oxide blobs). Basile’s data refutes his “thermite” conclusion.

                First Harrit clearly explains why the aluminum is so scarce
                What? Where? No. Why do you make up stuff again?

                and how it is separated from the silicon
                No. He shows an apple (chip a) that obviously has Al and Si associated in those hexagonal platelets (kaolin clay), then he shows a banana he soaked in MEK where Si and Al are not associated.
                The proof that the latter chip is a banana and not an apple is Fig 14 compared to Fig 7. He acknowledges the obvious differences between the spectra – and then simply handwaves them! Claims “contamination” without providing evidence for that claim!

                Do you have the the Harrit et al paper handy? Please open it at Fig 14!
                Now please open this (December) 2009 presentation by Dr. Steven Jones, starting at about 1:14 hours:

                He presents results from an analysis of actual WTC primer, scratched off of column that is part of a monument now. The XEDS result is shown at 1:14:50 (the larger chart on the right).
                Now compare this to Fig 14, the XEDS of that banana chip before MEK soaking! Do you notice something?
                – Both are dominated by C and O (the usual hydrocarbon matrix), then Ca (erroneously labeled “C” in the Jones presentation)
                – Both have a LOT more Si than Al (this in contrast to chips a-d, which all have same amounts)
                – Both have some sulfur
                – Both have smaller but significant amounts of Zn, Mg (not labeled in Fig. 14), Al and Cr
                That MEK-soaked chip sure looke very different from chips a-d, but surprisingly similar to WTC column paint – do you see that, HR1?

                So Harrit clearly compares a banana with apples.)

                both of which are in minute quantities after the the chip is burned.
                They ought not be – elements don’t vanish, neither Al nor Si form volatile substances when burning. That is one main reason why Harrit, Jones and Basile FAIL: They fail to show the necessary residue of Al2O3., of which there should be a LOT more by volume than “iron droplets” (thermite residue is about the same masses of Fe and Al2O3, but Al2O3 only has half the density, so there should be twice the volume)!

                Not finding large amounts of Al2O3 is another killer for the thermite hypothesis, which we have by now killed at least four times!

                Moving on to Basiles, experiment which clearly shows a thermitic reaction which results in the production of iron spheroids
                No. See my other post, linked above.

                Now why does this need to be explained over again to someone who actually watched and absorbed this video?
                You failed to watch and absorb and UNDERSTAND the entire presentations, which have more data than you knew.
                Basiles own data kills thermite.

                You also quietly dropped the Harrit letter “Why the paint chips aren’t paint” – why? He briefly touches on that in his failed presentation, but the real big fail is in that letter itself!
                You should read the letter, fully, carefully. Check the premises, check the logic, check the math, check the conclusions.
                If you are intelligent, and are capable of independent, free thought, you, too, can find the several severe blunders in that letter that totally kill the conclusion three times over.
                In fact. as I will show you in due time, Harrit reveals new data in that letter that actually corroborates the “paint” hypothesis.

                So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?

                1. “So are you afraid to touch the Harrit letter now?”~Schmidt

                  The primer paint when dry is:

                  > Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
                  > Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
                  > Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%

                  Put that on your heat strip and cook it.
                  \\][//

                  1. @HR1
                    The primer paint when dry is:
                    > Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
                    > Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
                    > Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%

                    Did you check the assumptions, the source documents, the logic and the math that led to these percentages? Did you verify they are all correct?

                    If you had done this (as I advised you to do at least twice), you might have noticed that
                    – Harrit hat one crucial base assumption WRONG
                    – Has another, less crucial, assumption very probably wrong
                    – Harrit MISREADS one source documents
                    – Harrit MISREPRESENT another source document
                    – Harrit has got his math FAULTY.

                    A chain of rather stupid mistakes led to this result. It is patently FALSE.

                    The primer, when dry, EITHER is
                    > 0% Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4)
                    > 0%Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2)
                    > 0% Calcium silicates or aluminates
                    (and instead: 16% iron oxide Fe2O3, 12% Aluminium Silicate Al2Si2O5(OH)4, 1.1% Strontium Chromate SrCrO4)
                    OR is approximately
                    > 13-14% Iron Oxide (Fe2O3)
                    > 7-8% Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4)
                    > 3.5-4% amorphous silica (SiO2)
                    > 12-13% other, unknown pigments, possibly including Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) and/or Calcium silicates or aluminates
                    OR
                    some other, as of yet unknown composition.

                    Why? Because Harrit’s first and worst FALSE assumption is that all paint chips would have a composition according to the Tnemec Red 99 recipe as reported by Sramek 1967. This specification however only applies to the perimeter columns above the 9th floor.
                    The floor joists were painted with another primer paint, one that has only the three pigments I listed in the first set of numbers.
                    And it is quite possible that core columns, perimeter below the 9th floor, the hat truss, the antenna, and all the steel assemblies of WTC7 were painted with other primer formulations.

                    The second (most probably) false assumption in Harrit’s letter is that he believes the Material Safety Data Sheet in Figure 4, valid I think for the year 2000, applies to the Tnemec composition of the late 60s or early 70s.

                    He misrepresent that MSD sheet as describing the ingredients of the proprietary “Tnemec Pigment”, which was 33.7% of the total pigment, but it actually described the ready, wet paint, including all the oganic resin and thinners.

                    He misreads the Tnemec composition (Figure 3): He thinks the percentages behind the individual pigments are based on the weigh of the ready wet painst as 100%. However, the four pigments add up to 100%, and the seven vehicle ingedients also add up to 100%! Zinc Yellow is 20.3% of the pigments, not of the paint! What is the proportion Pigments:Vehicle? We don’t know! But it is reasonable to assume that a proportion of 30:70 is plausible. Zinc Yellow would thus be 20.3% of the 30% that the Pigment are in the wet paint – that’s only 6.1% in the wet paint. Yes, thinners would probably evaporate during drying and curing, but because of the aforementioned blunders, Harrit overestimates the amount of thinners to subtract from the wet paint – his faulty math results in ~40% volatile ingredients, in reality it’s only ~22%.

                    See? The world renowned, excellently published Professor Dr. Harrit commits error after error after error – and yet, 6 years laters, no Truther ever spoted all these glaring errors, and Harrit himself has not retracted this letter, of which he should rightfully be deeply ashamed!

                    Now the floor joist primer composition
                    71.5% epoxy
                    16% iron oxide
                    11.5% Aluminium Silicate
                    1.1% Strontium Chromate SrCrO4
                    happens to be an excellent match for Fig 5 (right) where Harrit reveals what Harrit et al concealed in Figure 7: That Chip a has small but significant signals for Strontium and Chromium!

                    And the corrected Tnemec Red 99 composition seems to be a reasonable match for both Figure 6 in the Harrit letter (Fig 14 in Harrit et al) and the WTC column chip that Jones presented in Sydney.

                    So you see: Harrit’s letter backfires: it actually corroborates the paint conclusion, once you correct for all the stupid mistakes Harrit links together.

                    1. “Yes, thinners would probably evaporate during drying and curing,”~Schmidt

                      WTF do you mean “probably”??? I am a painter Schmidt, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.

                      > Zinc Chromate (ZnCrO4) 34%
                      > Talc (Mg3Si4 O10(OH)2) 12 – 17%
                      > Calcium silicates or aluminates 3.3 – 5.5%

                      Comes to about 56% of the ingredients, the other 35% would be solvents.

                      As per your further assumptions asserted as facts…. well, as others have said here;
                      “Bla bla bla” & more “Bla bla bla”

                      \\][//

                    2. @HR1
                      WTF do you mean “probably”??? I am a painter Schmidt, don’t try to blow smoke up my ass.
                      I am not a painter. I am not 100% sure how each paint is applied and how each paint reacts when curing.
                      There are paints where nothing evaporates and no weight loss occurs.
                      I am merely hedging my claim with the qualifier “probably”.
                      But I am glad that you agree with Harrit and me on that particular point.

                      Comes to about 56% of the ingredients, the other 35% would be solvents.
                      LOL
                      56+35=100?

                      Harrit did not list the other pigments – the iron oxide and and the diatomaceous silica. He arrived at those numbers by dividing the listed pigment content by 0.6. Do that to the other pigments:
                      Iron oxide 35.9% -> divided by 0.6 -> 59.8%
                      Silica 10.1% -> divided by 0.6 -> 16.8%
                      Add those to the 56%, and the pigments are 133% of the ingredients.
                      LMAO!

                      As per your further assumptions asserted as facts…. well, as others have said here; “Bla bla bla” & more “Bla bla bla”
                      You have finally hit rock bottom.

                    3. “LOL 56+35=100?”~Schmidt

                      Lol, yea, okay next time I will pick up a pencil instead of guesstimating off the top of my head.
                      We are in the ballpark anyway.

                      So you posit, GUESS, that the primer has some micaceous iron oxide. And you are obviously proposing that this could in some way account for the microspheres in the residue of burning a primer of such.

                      How?

                      How to you propose this would happen without subjecting it to temperatures in the range of 1,150 to 1,200 °C? Are you seriously contending that the approximate 450° ignition range used in Basile’s experiments could possibly achieve this? These are dried chips, there is no benzine available for coking them.
                      \\][//

                2. “That MEK-soaked chip sure looked very different from chips a-d, but surprisingly similar to WTC column paint – do you see that, HR1?”~Schmidt

                  No, what I see is that the chip BEFORE it was soaked in MEK, and the “actual WTC primer” are very similar. After soaking it is very different. See: Fig. 16, 17, 18, in Jones-Harrit paper,
                  pg 13.
                  \\][//